IFPRI Discussion Paper 02161 
December 2022 
Policy Issues and Options in Aquatic Food Systems 
Review of Frameworks, Tools, and Studies 
Catherine Ragasa 
Sarah Alobo Loison 
Development Strategy and Governance Division 
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a CGIAR Research Center established in 1975, 
provides research-based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition. 
IFPRI’s strategic research aims to foster a climate-resilient and sustainable food supply; promote healthy 
diets and nutrition for all; build inclusive and efficient markets, trade systems, and food industries; 
transform agricultural and rural economies; and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is 
integrated in all the Institute’s work. Partnerships, communications, capacity strengthening, and data and 
knowledge management are essential components to translate IFPRI’s research from action to impact. 
The Institute’s regional and country programs play a critical role in responding to demand for food policy 
research and in delivering holistic support for country-led development. IFPRI collaborates with partners 
around the world.  
 
AUTHORS 
Catherine Ragasa (c.ragasa@cgiar.org) is a senior research fellow in the Development Strategy and 
Governance Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC. 
 
Sarah Alobo Loison (sarah.alobo.loison@gmail.com) is an independent consultant and researcher. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notices  
 
1 IFPRI Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results and are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and 
critical comment. They have not been subject to a formal external review via IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee. Any opinions 
stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by IFPRI.  
 
2 The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or 
acceptance by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) or its partners and contributors. 
 
3 Copyright remains with the authors. The authors are free to proceed, without further IFPRI permission, to publish this paper, or any 
revised version of it, in outlets such as journals, books, and other publications. 
Abstract 
Although policies can be critical constraining or enabling factors for aquatic food systems (AqFS) 
development, scarce evaluation of the impacts of existing policies means that decision-makers 
have limited understanding of how to improve the design and implementation of effective policies. 
This paper reviews key policy issues in AqFS and how they have been analyzed and assessed to 
provide context-tailored policy options and guidance. Our review shows that countries face many 
policy issues but have little analysis on them. Despite the availability of a wide variety of 
frameworks, concepts, tools, methods, and approaches, their application in empirical analysis to 
solve policy issues in AqFS has been limited. More research is available on local- and community-
level governance of fisheries, but less on national or subnational policies and regulations in AqFS. 
The few available policy studies focus on developed countries, with fewer applications in 
developing countries where growth of the aquaculture and fisheries sectors is much stronger. The 
studies provide useful policy options and guidance, and this review highlights the need for more 
such studies to address policy-related issues in the sector.   
Keywords: policy analysis, aquatic food systems, aquaculture, fisheries, policy implementation, 
literature review
 
iii 
Acknowledgments 
This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Initiative on Resilient Aquatic Food 
Systems for Healthy People and Planet, and funded by CGIAR Trust Fund donors. Other CGIAR 
centers participating in Resilient Aquatic Food Systems include: WorldFish and International 
Water Management Institute (IWMI). We thank all funders who support this research through 
their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: https://www.cgiar.org/funders/. We thank Marleen 
Schutter and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful review and inputs. 
 
 
 
iv 
1. Introduction 
Global policymakers recognize the essential contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to global food 
security, nutrition, and economic growth, promoting sustainable expansion and intensification of the 
sectors through the “blue transformation” agenda (FAO, 2022a). A visionary strategy of the Food 
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the blue transformation aims to enhance 
the role of aquatic food systems (AqFS) in feeding the world’s growing population by providing the 
legal, policy, and technical frameworks required for sustainable growth and innovation of fisheries 
and aquaculture (FAO, 2022a). 
Aquatic foods play an important role in global food systems, contributing to nutrition, food security, 
and employment (Arthur et al., 2022; Béné et al., 2016; Chan et al., 2019; E-Jahan, Ahmed, and 
Belton, 2010; Koehn et al., 2022; Nasr-Allah et al., 2020). In 2020, the primary fisheries and 
aquaculture sector employed about 58.5 million people, of whom 21 percent were women, mainly 
in the informal, low-paid and less-skilled segments of the sector (FAO, 2022a). Small-scale fisheries 
and aquaculture provided livelihoods for over 100 million people and sustenance for about 1 billion 
people, particularly in the global south (Short et al., 2021). Moreover, aquatic food supply chains 
played an important role in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic (Belton et al., 2021). 
The world’s consumption of aquatic foods has increased significantly in recent years, and is 
projected to continue to rise (Costello et al., 2020; FAO, 2022a; Naylor, Hardy et al., 2021). A near 
doubling of global fish demand—due to growth in the global human population, incomes, and per 
capita consumption—is projected by midcentury assuming continued growth in aquaculture 
production and constant real prices for fish (Lam, 2016; Naylor, Kishore et al., 2021). Aquaculture 
has already surpassed capture fisheries production and will continue as the fastest-growing food 
subsector, with profound implications for global food security, income distribution, and ecological 
sustainability.  
This increasing global demand puts pressure on the environment and on water-land ecosystems, their 
structure, and their functionality (Basurto and Nenadovic, 2012). Growing concerns over the 
environmental impacts have prompted a search for a governance framework that can guarantee 
aquaculture sustainability (Partelow et al., 2022). As the sector continues to grow and becomes more 
important for food security globally, there are calls for focusing on production of low-trophic-level 
species to reduce environmental impacts and increase sustainability, and for policy to support the 
responsible and sustainable use of feed ingredients for aquaculture production (Cottrell et al., 2020; 
Cottrell et al. 2021; Tacon et al., 2022). The concept of sustainability must include maintaining, 
renewing, or restoring, and the ethical trade‐off between current economic pressures and the future 
needs of the environment (Wilkinson et al., 2001). 
Fishery resources continue to decline because of overfishing, pollution, poor management, and other 
factors; thus, improving global fisheries governance and management remains crucial to restore 
ecosystems to a healthy and productive state and protect the long-term supply of aquatic foods (FAO, 
 
1 
2022a). The main challenge of regulatory and policy systems is to improve production and 
productivity in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors while reducing environmental impacts and 
ensuring social inclusion in the development process (Boyd et al., 2020; FAO, 2020, 2022a; Naylor, 
Hardy et al., 2021; Osmundsen et al., 2022).  
The increasing emphasis on food systems has several development objectives:  
• Economic (value chain competitiveness, improved incomes, and poverty reduction) 
• Environmental (biodiversity, resilient ecosystems and environmentally sustainable) 
• Social inclusion (equitable and fair, employment generation) 
To support AqFS transformation, national policies should include the following: 
• Economic policies—government initiatives to influence an economy through prices, 
taxation, interest rate, government funds, and so on 
• Environmental policies—measures by the government for environmental protection and 
management in support of the public interest 
• Social policies—measures by which societies meet human needs for security, education, 
work, health, and well-being 
Governments and partners need to balance the trade-offs and guidance when developing such 
policies. Although policies can be critical constraining or enabling factors for AqFS development, 
the scarce evaluation of the impacts of existing policies give policymakers limited understanding of 
how to improve design and implementation of effective policies. The literature has little rigorous 
evidence assessing the effectiveness of aquaculture programs and few impact evaluation studies on 
aquaculture programs or policies (Gonzalez Parrao et al., 2021). Policy analysis and evaluation can 
close the gaps in data and evidence for informed decision making on policy programs and 
investments, and provide new insights in the design of appropriate policies to promote equitable and 
sustainable aquatic food systems. 
Analyzing policies and having the appropriate management, regulation, and governance institutions 
and mechanisms are important to identify specific hindering and enabling conditions for expansion 
and intensification in aquaculture and fisheries (Anderson et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2019; Partelow 
et al., 2022; Peel and Lloyd, 2008; Subasinghe et al., 2009). Moreover, achieving sustainable 
development of fisheries and aquaculture requires commitment from government, the private sector, 
and civil society (FAO, 2022a; Muringai et al., 2022; Ragasa et al., 2022). Many national policies 
now recognize the importance of fisheries and aquaculture in food and nutrition security and 
sustainable development (FAO, 2020, 2022a; Farmery et al., 2021; Koehn et al., 2022). 
Nevertheless, fisheries and aquaculture require more policy research. In order to develop more 
targeted and systematic policies and address the global challenges of equity, nutrition, and 
sustainability, that research needs to examine more closely the diversity of AqFS and impacts on the 
well-being of poor and vulnerable social groups (Anderson et al., 2019; Simmance et al., 2022). For 
example, a recent study that analyzed national policy documents of 194 countries reveals a frequent 
 
2 
failure of policies to address political and gender-based barriers to social justice in AqFS outcomes 
(Hicks et al., 2022). Box 1 sets out the numerous policy issues and questions that countries, sector 
planners, and decision-makers are asking—or should be asking. 
 
3 
 Box 1. Illustrative examples of AqFS policy issues and questions 
 
• Fish seed policies  
− Should the country allow foreign fish strains?  
− What are the productivity differentials between the latest generations of genetically improved 
fish strains and the local strains? What are the social, economic, and environmental costs and 
benefits of the genetically improved strains versus local strains? 
− How can local breeding capacity be strengthened (versus importing highly productive strains 
from other countries)? 
• Market and trade policies  
− Are import bans effective in boosting local production or detrimental in terms of higher food 
prices and reduced domestic food security? 
− How can we improve competitiveness of local fish production? 
− What bilateral or regional trade arrangements can be negotiated and adopted to promote fish and 
feed production and promote aquaculture trade within regional blocks? 
− How do we best design and enforce fish disease monitoring and surveillance within and across 
borders?  
− How do we set up a one-stop shop for business transactions?   
− What credit market policies and innovations can solve credit access issues and credit market 
failures? 
• Subsidy programs  
− Are subsidies effective? What are the optimal amount and type of subsidy? 
− What is the best way to support the aquaculture and fisheries sector without creating too much 
dependence on aid/subsidy?  
• Fiscal policies  
− How can we incentivize and facilitate private sector investments?  
− How can we encourage more fish value addition and processing?  
− What are the effects of foreign currency fluctuations and fiscal policies on AqFS? 
• Environmental, biosecurity, and food safety policies  
− Will mandatory certification effectively improve fingerling quality and fish production? 
− How can we better enforce environmental policies and regulations in AqFS? 
− How can farmers adapt to a more extreme climate, and what strategies can the government use 
to support climate resilience? 
− What are optimal zoning strategies, and how do we address land/water tenure issues? 
− Which quality assurance approaches are more effective: mandatory certification versus 
voluntary certification, and facility inspection versus end-of-product testing? 
− Are education and awareness raising more effective than regulation? 
• Social policies  
− How can we encourage more women and youth into aquaculture and fisheries value chains? 
− How can we challenge gender norms and empower women to be active producers and 
entrepreneurs in aquaculture and fisheries value chains? 
• Nutrition policies  
− How can we better diversify farmed fish species to contribute to food and nutrition security?  
• Policy and political processes  
− How do we change policy? Who are the decision-makers/champions, and how do we influence 
them? How do we increase policy attention, public expenditure, and investments in AqFS? 
• Development policies 
− How can policy support the development of more sustainable technological advances in AqFS 
such as integrated multitrophic aquaculture, multiuse platforms at sea, and so on? 
− How can policy support the development of effective governance solutions for sustainability of 
AqFS?  
4 
The link between AqFS research, policies, and stakeholders is important for sustainable development 
in fisheries and aquaculture (Aberman et al., 2009; Krause et al., 2015). Some argue, however, that 
a disconnect exists between science, people, and policy, and that the social and economic 
implications of aquaculture development take a back seat to trade, ecological, and technological 
motivations amid efforts toward sustainable intensification of aquaculture production (Krause et al., 
2015). Many countries lack the participation and consideration of a wider range of stakeholders in 
decision-making and policy-formulating processes surrounding aquaculture implementation (Krause 
et al., 2015). To be effective and inclusive, decision-making and policy-formulating processes 
should be informed by science where relevant, and include stakeholders at various levels of decision-
making. For example, aquaculture policies and regulations have so far been primarily influenced by 
traditional fisheries managers, environmental groups, and natural scientists (Anderson et al., 2019).  
Analysts, researchers, and policymakers require the necessary frameworks, tools, and methods for 
policy analysis to guide them in evaluating different policy alternatives or assessing the impact of 
policy changes. A better understanding of national policymaking processes is crucial to inform 
policy decisions, influence policy change, analyze the feasibility of policy alternatives, and improve 
policy outcomes (Oliver and Cairney, 2019; Resnick et al., 2015). Linking research and policy is 
also necessary to provide evidence for policymaking and improve the impact of policy on the poor 
and other vulnerable groups (Start and Hovland, 2004).  
This paper presents an extensive review of the different frameworks (or concepts), tools, methods, 
and approaches available in the literature for policy analysis in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. 
It focuses on studies applying the policy analysis frameworks/tools/methods to fisheries and 
aquaculture in developed or developing countries, as well as some frameworks/tools/methods 
applied to other sectors but relevant for studying policies in aquaculture and fisheries. The paper 
provides examples of studies that used each framework/tool/method, how it was used, and the data 
requirements. It separates, where possible, the studies on aquaculture and fisheries. This review fills 
a gap in the literature by providing a systematic overview of frameworks, tools, and approaches for 
policy analysis in the fisheries and aquaculture sphere. It lays out for researchers, scientists, 
practitioners, policymakers, civil society, and others the valuable frameworks, concepts, tools, and 
methods that help support their activities. 
The next sections are structured as follows. Section 2 presents a brief description of the literature 
search methodology, followed by a description of the major frameworks and concepts identified in 
the literature on policy analysis and evaluation in AqFS research (section 3). Section 4 provides an 
inventory and description of the different tools, methods, and approaches used for policy analysis 
and evaluation that have also been identified in the literature. Section 5 discusses policy issues, 
solutions, and lessons from the literature on policy analysis and evaluation, and other policy-related 
studies in AqFS. Last, the conclusion considers the implications for policy analysis and development 
in AqFS. 
 
 
5 
2. Literature search methodology 
The scholarly articles for the literature review come from the web databases of Google Scholar, 
ScienceDirect, and Semantic Scholar, which include peer-reviewed online academic journals and 
books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other 
scholarly literature. The literature search did not capture unpublished or gray literature unavailable 
online or articles not written in English. 
The search for scholarly articles used a combination of the keywords “policy,” “policy analysis,” 
“policy analysis + aquaculture,” and “policy analysis + fisheries” to identify articles with such 
keywords in the title or abstract or as a subject within the articles. The search was expanded using 
the keywords “law,” “regulation,” and “governance” in order to capture governance issues in 
aquaculture and fisheries. Box 2 defines in more detail the keywords used in the search, together 
with other terminologies used in this paper.  The global search returned more than 400 scholarly 
articles. 
 
Box 2. Definitions of key search words and terminologies 
 
Policy: A law, regulation, procedure, administrative action, incentive, or voluntary practice of 
governments and other institutions (Boyd-Brown et al., 2022). Several types of policy operate 
at different levels (national, state, local, or organizational): (1) legislative policies are laws or 
ordinances created by elected representatives; (2) regulatory policies include rules, guidelines, 
principles, or methods created by government agencies with regulatory authority for products 
or services; and (3) organizational policies include rules or practices established within an 
agency or organization. This paper defines policies as broad statements on development 
objectives, often in policy and strategy documents at the national and subnational levels.  
Policy analysis: The systematic, analytic, and ethically informed comparison and evaluation of 
policy alternatives available to public actors for solving social problems (Weimer and Vining, 
2017). Policy analysis is designed to supply information about complex problems and to assess 
the processes by which a policy is formulated and implemented in order to address those 
problems, through evaluating the policy’s anticipated outcomes or actual results (Yanow, 2000).  
Policy analysis methods: Systematic procedures for attacking specific problems with specific 
purposes, using basic or researched methods (Patton et al., 2013). Basic methods are quickly 
applied but theoretically sound ways to aid in making good policy decisions. Researched 
methods (e.g., survey research, model building, and input-output studies) are well codified with 
routine steps of exploration and accepted standards of scientific behavior and may require 
substantial budget, time, and data to achieve results (Patton et al., 2013). 
Policy evaluation: Applies evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, 
implementation, or impact of a policy (Hanberger, 2001).  Policy evaluation uses a range of 
research methods to systematically investigate the effectiveness of policy interventions, 
 
6 
implementation, and processes, and to determine their merit, worth, or value in terms of 
improving the social and economic conditions of different stakeholders (Vedung, 2017). 
Social policy: A deliberate intervention by the state to redistribute resources among its citizens 
so as to achieve a welfare objective (Baldock et al., 2011). A social policy is always a proactive 
attempt to change a given social order, with the classic justification that it will lead to greater 
social justice, though that may not be the classic outcome (Baldock et al., 2011). 
Economic policy: A wide range of measures used by governments to manage the economy and 
achieve various objectives: improving the population’s standard of living, alleviating poverty, 
promoting sustainable growth, achieving full employment, maintaining price stability, and 
reaching a fair distribution of income among others (Bénassy-Quéré and Pisani-Ferry, 2018).  
Environmental policy: Primarily concerned with governing the relationship between humans 
and the natural environment in a mutually beneficial manner, and traditionally defined in terms 
of the problems it addressed, such as controlling pollution and waste flows, and limiting habitat 
loss (Benson and Jordan, 2015). Governance arrangements are also sought for environmental 
problems that require cooperation, for example, through behavior change or adoption of certain 
practices, and environmental governance offers a framework that specifically seeks positive 
social-ecological outcomes (Cocklin and Moon, 2020).  
Framework: A suggested point of view for addressing a scientific problem. Although it often 
suggests testable hypotheses, it is not a detailed hypothesis or set of hypotheses (Crick and Koch, 
2003). A good framework sounds reasonably plausible relative to available scientific data and 
turns out to be largely correct. Although unlikely correct in all the details, it—unavoidably—
often contains unstated (and often unrecognized) assumptions (Crick and Koch, 2003). 
Governance: The rules, structures, processes, and behavior that affect how powers are 
exercised, particularly as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and 
coherence (Gray, 2006). It involves the creation of institutions, rules, and organizations, and the 
selection of normative principles to guide problem solving and institution building (Huitema et 
al., 2016). Good governance has seven principles: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, 
inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity, and resilience (Aguado et al., 2021). Governance theory 
distinguishes between three ideal modes of governance: (1) hierarchical governance reflects 
interactions between a government and its citizens (a top-down style of intervention), and 
expresses itself in policies and in law; (2) self-governance in modern society has actors take care 
of themselves, outside the purview of government; and (3) co-governance has societal parties 
join hands with a common purpose in mind and stake their identity and autonomy in the process 
(Kooiman et al., 2005).  This paper defines governance to include structures and processes, rules, 
institutions, and organizations, usually at a lower level, that support or constrain the 
implementation of the broader national or subnational policies. 
 
Screening of the articles occurred in steps. First, all titles and abstracts were screened, keeping 
articles linked to policy analysis and/or aquaculture and/or fisheries. Second, all articles without full 
text accessible online were excluded. Third, the results were refined by screening the full text of 
 
7 
articles to evaluate the content. Fourth, articles without relevant information were excluded, leaving 
a total of 306 articles in the final database. Fifth, a review was conducted using the full text of the 
articles that provided the relevant information. The bibliographic data on the reviewed articles were 
imported and managed using Zotero reference management software. Results from the review 
exercise are reported using a narrative synthesis. 
 
3. Frameworks and concepts for policy analysis and evaluation 
3.1. A general framework for conducting policy analysis and evaluation   
Policy analysis and policy evaluation both aim to provide policymakers with information to help 
them make better decisions. It is a learning process that helps policy makers to get a better 
understanding of policy problems and potential solutions in order to design and implement 
appropriate policies. As already defined, policy analysis primarily aims to identify policy options or 
alternatives for addressing a specified problem given a pending decision. It can be conducted ex ante 
to anticipate the results of alternative policies in order to choose among them, or ex post to describe 
the consequences of a policy (Patton et al., 2013). The basic policy analysis process includes problem 
definition, determination of evaluation criteria, identification of alternatives, evaluation of 
alternatives, comparison of alternatives, and assessment of outcomes (Patton et al., 2013). 
Policy evaluation, which focuses on existing policy, is an integral part of each step in the policy 
process (Hanberger, 2001). Evaluating the development of a policy helps in understanding the policy 
process, its context, content, implementation, and outcome (Brownson et al., 2009). The type of 
policy evaluation selected depends on many factors, and often more than one type of evaluation is 
needed. Each type of policy evaluation can provide valuable information for the planning and 
interpretation of other types of evaluation and the consequences. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship 
between the main stages of the policy process and three types of policy evaluation.  
Figure 1. The policy process and types of policy evaluation 
 
Problem Strategy and  Policy 
 identification Policy analysis policy Policy
development enactment implementation
 
Policy content evaluation Policy Policy impact 
 implementation evaluation 
evaluation 
 
Source: Adapted from CDC, 2011 
 
 
8 
The policy process begins with problem identification and ends with policy implementation, and 
often a feedback loop leads back to the policy problem identified. Each type of policy evaluation 
focuses on a different phase of the policy process. Policy content evaluation examines whether the 
content clearly articulates the goals of the policy, its implementation, and the underlying logic for 
why the policy will produce intended change. Policy implementation evaluation examines whether 
the policy was implemented as intended and is a critical component in understanding the 
effectiveness of the policy. It can provide important information about the barriers to and facilitators 
of implementation and a comparison between different components or intensities of implementation 
Policy impact evaluation examines whether the policy produced the intended outcomes (short-term 
and intermediate) and impact.  
Figure 2 presents a general framework for conducting policy evaluation. The framework proposes 
six interconnected steps to guide researchers in conducting a policy evaluation in practice, with 
recommended standards that can provide sound guidelines.  
Figure 2. A framework for policy evaluation 
 
 Source: Adapted from Milstein et al. (2000). 
 
The six steps may or may not occur in a nonlinear sequence: (1) engage stakeholders, that is, the 
primary intended users and those involved or affected by the policy; (2) describe the policy, 
including its needs, expectations, activities, resources, stage of development, and context, and the 
logic model that displays how the entire policy is supposed to work; (3) focus the evaluation design 
by describing the purpose, users, uses, questions, methods, agreements that summarize roles, 
responsibilities, budgets, and deliverables of the policy evaluation; (4) gather credible evidence with 
clearly defined indicators, sources, quantity and quality of information, and logistics used to gather 
and handle evidence; (5) justify conclusions, involves appreciation of stakeholders’ standards, 
analysis/synthesis to determine the findings, interpretation of findings, judgment of how the findings 
should be valued according to the selected standards, and recommendations; and (6) ensure use and 
share lessons learned—that is, design the evaluation to achieve intended uses, prepare stakeholders 
 
9 
for eventual use, provide continuous feedback to stakeholders, follow up with intended users to 
facilitate the transfer of conclusions into appropriate actions or decisions, and disseminate lessons 
learned to relevant stakeholders or those interested in the policy.  
 
For effective policy evaluation, the following standards should be considered: (1) utility standards 
ensure that information needs of intended users are satisfied (for example through stakeholder 
identification, evaluator credibility, information scope and selection, values identification, report 
clarity, report timeliness and dissemination, and evaluation impact); (2) feasibility standards ensure 
viable and pragmatic policy evaluation (practical procedures, political viability, and cost 
effectiveness); (3) propriety standards ensure that the policy evaluation is legal and ethical, with 
due regard for the welfare of those affected (service orientation, formal agreements, rights of human 
subjects, human interactions, complete and fair assessment, disclosure of findings, conflict of 
interest, and fiscal responsibility); and (4) accuracy standards ensure that the policy evaluation 
produces findings that are considered correct by revealing and conveying technically accurate 
information (defensible information sources; valid, reliable, and systematic information; analysis of 
quantitative and qualitative information; justified conclusions; impartial reporting; and meta-
evaluation). 
3.2. Frameworks and concepts for AqFS policy analysis and evaluation 
Effective policy analysis and evaluation require approaching a problem from various perspectives, 
integrating quantitative and qualitative information, and using appropriate tools or methods to test 
the feasibility of proposed policy alternatives (Patton et al., 2013). This section describes the 
frameworks and concepts available for studying policy and governance problems in AqFS. Annex 1 
presents a summary table of different frameworks that have been applied in the AqFS literature. 
3.2.1. The kaleidoscope model of policy change 
The kaleidoscope model has been applied to study the policy issues and drivers of policy change in 
agriculture and food and nutrition security across diverse countries, stakeholders, and decision-
making environments (Resnick et al., 2015). The model identifies key variables that explain what 
policies emerge on a government’s agenda, how they are designed, whether they are adopted and 
implemented, and how and why they might be refined. It draws on actual episodes of policy change 
in developing countries from the agricultural and nutrition sectors as well as other domains. 
Empirically validated through country case studies in a wide range of policy domains, the model 
gives a framework for policymakers, donors, and other stakeholders interested in better 
understanding whether, why, and how specific policies are implemented. 
In identifying key variables that help drive policy change, it takes into account the collective action 
of actors, the institutions that provide the context for that action, and how policies change over time. 
It builds on insights from interactive models while recognizing that interests, institutions, and ideas 
 
10 
have relevance to the policy process at different times. It enables the understanding of why a policy 
change occurs in one country, in one policy arena, or at one time period but not another. The model 
can be used to identify whether a policy is actually implemented, and it gives scope for analyzing 
why change does not occur. In practice, it allows for tracing why a policy fails to be implemented 
by taking into account where gaps may have existed during other stages of the policy cycle. At any 
particular time, some factors—such as the influences and actions of national policymakers—may 
have a larger role than others in influencing policy change.  
The kaleidoscope model differentiates between primary and secondary variables relevant for 
influencing each stage of the policy process. Primary variables, the “key determinants of policy 
change,” are in turn influenced by secondary variables, or “contextual conditions.” The model 
identifies five key elements of the policy cycle: (1) agenda setting, which depends on the focusing 
events, powerful advocacy coalitions, and the relevant policy problem; (2) policy design, influenced 
by pressing versus chosen problems, ideas and beliefs, and cost-benefit calculations; (3) policy 
adoption, driven by veto players, relative power of proponents versus opponents, and propitious 
timing; (4) policy implementation, influenced by institutional capacity, budgetary allocations, and 
the commitment of policy champions; and (5) policy evaluation and reform, which depend on 
changing beliefs of veto players and champions, and available resources relative to costs.    
The policy process is often iterative and nonlinear because past decisions influence future policies. 
Most existing theories on policy process and change focus implicitly on one or more of the key 
elements. Focusing on a particular stage of the policy process reveals a different constellation of key 
variables. The kaleidoscope model has been applied empirically to analyze agricultural inputs 
policies such as Agricultural Input Subsidy Reform in Africa (Resnick et al., 2017), Ghana’s 
Fertilizer Subsidy Program from 2008 to 2015 (Resnick and Mather, 2016), micronutrient policy in 
South Africa (Hendriks et al., 2016), Tanzania’s Fertilizer Subsidy Programs from 2003 to 2016 
(Mather and Ndyetabula, 2016), and micronutrient policy change in Zambia (Haggblade et al., 
2016). Although not yet applied to AqFS, this model has great potential for use in understanding 
aquatic food system policies in different contexts, and identifying the determinants of policy change 
in order to improve the policy process and support better policy design and implementation. 
3.2.2. Aquaculture governance framework: The commons perspective 
Partelow et al. (2022) developed a conceptual framework based on a shared resource or commons 
perspective which is important for identifying the social and environmental commons creating 
collective action problems or social dilemmas for aquaculture governance. This framework offers a 
tool for identifying and analyzing existing shared resources in aquaculture. It draws on several 
theories—such as the common-pool resource, public goods theory, institutional theories, and 
analysis—and their applications in aquaculture systems. It helps conceptualize the origin of 
governance problems and the analysis of institutional interactions and solutions. In addition, it 
 
11 
provides theoretical explanations for the origins of governance problems unique to aquaculture and 
acts as an analytical tool for case studies.  
The framework categorizes governance problems as first- and second-order collective action 
problems. Collective action problems arise in governing shared resources because typical individual-
use strategies (maximization, free riding) often diverge from group or collective interests (fair 
contributions, sustainable use). The two types of collective action problems in aquaculture are (1) 
first-order aquaculture commons, linked to direct use and provision, with governance challenges 
that include water quality, water quantity, physical space, inputs, genetic diversity, mitigating 
infectious disease, earth and climate stability, infrastructure, knowledge, and money; and (2) second-
order institutions, for provision, maintenance, and adaptation of institutions to govern the use of 
first-order commons. These institutions include the rules and norm systems that structure property 
rights and markets, to better align individual behavior and collective interests through governance. 
Institutions guide human behavior and largely influence the sustainability of the appropriation and 
provision of shared resources or commons, helping to solve the first-order collective action problem 
of tangible resources.  
The framework identifies two overarching types of institutions, rule systems and norm systems, as 
the basis for understanding institutions, such as property rights and markets. Rule systems and 
governance structures are critically important social public goods. Formal rules typically refer to 
written rules, often formally enforced; operational rules are the practical day-to-day rules providing 
a set of options for aquaculture stakeholders to make actionable choices. Norm systems are also 
public goods in the form of social and cultural practices, or conventions making up a good proportion 
of a community’s social capital. Markets are bundles of rules and norms or institutional 
combinations. Property rights refer to who has access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, and 
alienation rights to shared resources. Property rights and markets, as structured by rules and norms, 
exist in many forms to solve first-order collective action problems. 
Governance challenges are categorized into environmental and social commons. Environmental 
commons are first-order collective action problems in the governance of common pool resources—
for example, fresh water quantity and availability, water quality, physical space, and public goods 
such as genetic diversity, earth system and climate stability, mitigating infectious diseases, and 
inputs (seed stock and feed inputs, plant seedlings, animal eggs or juveniles, and so on). Social 
commons include public and private goods that often have interrelated governance and collective 
action problems, and that exist together in bundles such as knowledge, public infrastructure, and 
money or financing. Social commons consist of both first- and second-order collective action 
problems, bundled together.  
A checklist of steps for applying the framework include: (1) identify the relevant commons; (2) 
analyze the role of institutions; (3) identify the property rights and markets shaping the use or 
provision of the relevant commons; (4) through literature review or empirical research, determine 
 
12 
the rules and norms involved; and (5) consider further questions such as how the commons and 
institutions interrelate to each other, how they have evolved over time, and whether institutions 
match issues and challenges in relation to the relevant commons or if significant institutional gaps 
exist. Analysis can be conducted at the local or country level, or at a multicountry level if the shared 
commons involve cross-border interactions and governance. Identifying the commons and 
institutions at different levels can be combined with other theories beyond commons and collective 
action theories, such as multilevel governance theory, network governance, or polycentricity to 
further unpack governance interactions. 
In order to apply the framework in analyzing aquaculture governance, four key points are important: 
(1) cross-sector links between capture fisheries, agriculture, public health and nutrition, and so on; 
(2) land–water–sea connectivity issues; (3) recognition of governance’s broad and pluralistic nature, 
and understanding it as an embedded feature of social systems; and (4) recognition that external and 
generalized governing strategies (e.g., policies, legislation, property rights configurations, market 
mechanisms) will not likely be successful unless they are evolved within or tailored to the local 
context. Partelow et al. (2022) applied the framework to four case study countries to identify existing 
aquaculture commons, institutions, and governance challenges in recirculating aquaculture systems 
(Denmark), raceway flow-through systems (Nepal), mariculture (Peru), and earthen ponds 
(Philippines). The framework was used to characterize the context and use of specific shared 
resources, institutional configurations, governance challenges, and potential solutions.  
Several studies have investigated issues surrounding aquaculture governance in other contexts such 
as: governance of aquaculture value chains in Asia (Ponte et al., 2014), aquaculture policy and 
regulation for the development of integrated multitrophic aquaculture in Europe (K. A. Alexander 
et al., 2015), challenges for policymakers in governance of multiuse platforms at sea for energy 
production and aquaculture in European seas (Stuiver et al., 2016), and governance and planning 
policy in the marine environment for regulating aquaculture in Scotland (Peel and Lloyd, 2008).  
3.2.3. Fisheries governance frameworks 
According to Basurto and Nenadovic (2012), policies for fisheries governance include three broad 
groups of policy instruments deployed either individually or in combination to achieve a desired 
management objective, depending on the context. Output or catch controls—such as total allowable 
catch, catch quotas, and vessel catch limits—regulate the catches of a fishing fleet or individual 
fishers or boats. Input or effort controls—consisting of limited licenses, effort quotas, and gear and 
vessel restrictions—limit the number of fishers or boats in the fishery and regulate the type of fishing 
gear and the length of its use. Technical measures—such as time and area closures and size and sex 
selectivity through gear regulation—restrict the catch that can be achieved for a given amount of 
effort.  
 
13 
The literature identifies three main frameworks for analyzing fisheries governance. First, the social-
ecological systems framework provides guidance on assessing the social and ecological dimensions 
that contribute to sustainable resource use and management (Leslie et al., 2015). Binder et al. (2013) 
and Partelow (2018) provide a detailed review of the social-ecological systems framework, its 
applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Some applications include sustainability 
assessment of fisheries in Chile and Mexico (Basurto et al., 2013; Leslie et al., 2015); linking fisher 
perceptions to social-ecological context in Costa Rica (Partelow et al., 2021); improving pond 
aquaculture production in Lombok, Indonesia (Senff et al., 2018); and analyzing the relationship 
between people and policy in aquaculture development (Krause et al., 2015). 
Second, the interactive governance and governability framework has been used in various contexts 
(Bavinck et al., 2013; Jentoft and Bavinck, 2014; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2015; Kooiman, 2016). 
According to Kooiman (2016), interactive governance includes the whole range of interactions to 
solve societal problems and create societal opportunities, the formulation and application of 
principles guiding those interactions, and the care for institutions enabling them. Governability is 
the overall quality for governance of any societal entity, divided into a system to be governed, a 
governing system, and a system of interactions mediating between the two. Diversity, complexity, 
dynamics, and scale are identified as the major variables influencing governance and governability 
of societal entities. 
Third, participatory fisheries governance approaches emphasize democratic engagement and 
deliberative processes steering the complex set of interactions among stakeholders with different 
needs, demands, and interests, and whose activities are often managed by multiple agencies and 
regulations (Aguado et al., 2021). Participatory approaches have been used to analyze the quality of 
fisheries governance in Spain using a multicriteria framework (Aguado et al., 2021); fisheries 
governance in Europe (Pita et al., 2012); how regional advisory councils can incorporate stakeholder 
knowledge into fisheries governance (Linke et al., 2011); rights-based fisheries governance (Allison 
et al., 2012); participation, integration, and institutional reform in fisheries governance (Linke et al., 
2020); and community empowerment through participatory fisheries research (Wiber et al., 2009). 
3.2.4. Institutional analysis and development framework 
The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework considers institutional design and 
performance in the management of common pool resource systems such as fisheries (Ostrom, 2011, 
2007b). One of many approaches to conducting institutional analysis, the IAD framework offers a 
systematic approach to analyzing the elements, links, and underlying logic of policy designs, and is 
an integrative approach for deconstructing and reconstructing policy designs (Carter et al., 2016). It 
has been used extensively to design policy experiments and empirically test theories and models 
linking ecological-economic systems, institutions, and the sustainability of common pool resource 
systems (Rudd, 2004). The IAD framework has been used for empirical analysis of fisheries 
management institutions in both developed and developing countries (Imperial and Yandle, 2005). 
 
14 
Institutional analysis examines the problems that individuals (or organizations) face and how rules 
address the problems (Ostrom, 1990). As noted earlier, fisheries management presents a classic 
collective action problem, with common problems such as poor incentive structures, inefficient 
fishing practices, or those inconsistent with community values (Olson, 1971; Ostrom, 1990). 
 Four competing institutional arrangements exist for fisheries management, according to Imperial 
and Yandle (2005): (1) bureaucracy—the ‘‘leviathan’’ or centralized bureaucratic arrangement 
based on government regulation; (2) markets—market-based arrangements that allocate total 
allowable catch using individual transferable quotas; (3) community—community-based 
arrangements that rely on self-regulation of fisheries by communities and user groups; and (4) co-
management—an arrangement that relies on shared management between government agencies and 
user groups. Because different institutional arrangements can achieve the same policy objective, 
policy analysis needs to consider the comparative advantage of an institutional arrangement, given 
contextual factors and competing goals and values of decision-makers, in order to provide policy-
relevant information and advice to decision-makers. In fisheries, this advice often centers on the 
nature of the rules used to alter fisher behavior and maintain sustainable fish stocks. Thus, IAD 
focuses on such things as the organization of the fishery (e.g., location, community characteristics, 
industry structure), who makes decisions and how, the rules used to allocate and distribute resources, 
rules governing fisher behavior, and rule enforcement. 
According to Imperial and Yandle (2005), three major elements of the IAD framework are used to 
analyze fisheries management institutions. First, the contextual setting—which typically includes a 
fishery and the community affected by the rules governing the fishery—focuses on three sets of 
contextual factors: the physical setting, attributes of the community, and the existing institutional 
setting (Ostrom, 2007). Second, transaction costs associated with developing and implementing 
fisheries policy include information costs, coordination costs, and strategic costs (Ostrom et al., 
1993). Third, the assessment of overall institutional performance relies on four interrelated criteria 
to assess the overall performance of institutional arrangements: efficiency, equity, accountability, 
and adaptability (Ostrom et al., 1993). It is also important to understand the relationship between 
institutional performance and policy outcomes. The ideal situation is to have well-performing 
institutional arrangements with sufficient underlying restrictions on fishing behavior to maintain 
sustainable fish stocks (Imperial and Yandle, 2005). The multiple and competing policy objectives 
in fisheries management necessitate the use of various criteria to assess overall institutional 
performance and to understand the trade-offs that exist between them. 
 
The IAD framework has been applied in some empirical aquaculture studies to understand the 
challenges in analyzing governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services in Qingdao, China (Li 
et al., 2016); developing environmentally sustainable cage culture farming in Lake Maninjau, 
Indonesia (Yuniarti et al., 2021); analysis of aquaculture in Galicia, Spain (Fernández-González et 
 
15 
al., 2020); and assessing policy design and interpretation of aquaculture policies in Florida and 
Virginia of the United States (Siddiki, 2015). 
3.2.5. Systems thinking  
Systems thinking provides a methodology for better understanding the nonlinear behavior of complex 
systems and improving assessment of the consequences of policy interventions (Hynes et al., 2020). 
It can complement established approaches to policy analysis and implementation by providing 
greater insight into the complex, dynamic systems of the modern world (Hynes et al., 2020). The 
methodology and tools of systems thinking can respond to the concerns and priorities of 
governments by providing valuable insights into policy choices, trade-offs, and synergies; improving 
the effectiveness of policy interventions; and facilitating the assessment and management of risk 
(Hynes et al., 2020). Based on the belief that components of a system will act differently when 
viewed in isolation from other parts of the same system, the approach sets out to view whole 
structures in a holistic manner (Stead, 2019).  
According to Hynes et al. (2020), the application of systems thinking includes five practical tools: 
(1) economic analysis uses systems analysis models that can integrate real-world dynamics and 
complex collective decision-making, and facilitate the evaluation of policies’ effectiveness and 
impacts; (2) impact assessments link to the environment and sustainable development; (3) system 
mapping decomposes the behavior of a complex system into subprocesses that can be described in 
a relatively simple way to give policymakers a broad view of the drivers of policy outcomes; (4) 
network theory and agent-based modeling quantitatively measure, model, and manage systemic risk 
and resilience to give policymakers an effective and efficient resilience management framework; 
and (5) food systems thinking is commonly used for understanding and responding to nutrition, food 
security, and sustainability challenges by integrating the social, economic, environmental, and health 
aspects of food from production to consumption (Simmance et al., 2022). 
 
Food systems thinking goes beyond value chain approaches by recognizing the multidirectional 
relations between production and consumption practices, with outcomes that extend beyond 
producer performance. It includes food security or sustainability, broader societal transitions such 
as urbanization and globalization, and their influence on where and how food is produced, 
distributed, and consumed (Tezzo et al., 2021). A framework based on food systems thinking 
captures the ways complex drivers of change at a broader scale affect the functioning of food 
systems, often with uncertainty and unforeseen consequences that feed back into the system, 
implying a link between resilience of food systems and food security (Béné, 2020). With respect to 
the concept and challenges of food systems, Simmance et al. (2022) identify three broad priority 
areas for fisheries, aquaculture, and AqFS research: (1) examine a broader set of aquatic food types 
amid diverse diets, (2) examine systemwide flows (and losses) of nutrients and trade-offs among 
objectives, and (3) focus on opportunities and innovations to address nutritional needs of vulnerable 
and marginalized social groups. 
 
16 
The High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition present food systems thinking 
(Clapp et al., 2020; FAO, 2018; HLPE, 2017) as an ambitious framework for researchers and 
policymakers to shape research design, data interpretation, policy, investment, and action. Adopting 
the framework can potentially improve research and policy understanding of drivers of change and 
their impacts across all stages of food systems, from food production to health and nutrition 
outcomes, and as such can help determine how various investment, action, or policy adjustments 
might affect sustainability, equity, and food and nutrition security. The comprehensive food systems 
framework (HLPE 2017); Simmance et al., 2022) comprises diverse components and relationships 
with social, economic, environmental, health, and nutrition impacts: (1) food supply chains 
(production systems, storage and distribution, processing and packaging, retail and markets); (2) 
food environments (food availability and physical access, economic access, promotion, advertising 
and information, food quality and safety); (3) consumer behavior and diets (quantity, quality, 
diversity, safety); and (4) drivers of food systems (environmental, technological, political and 
economic, social-cultural, demographic, institutional), which act upon the entire system or parts of 
the system. Food systems thinking has been adapted and used to study issues in aquaculture and 
fisheries. For example, Tezzo et al. (2021) conducted a systematic literature review to analyze 
development research and policies that have accompanied the ongoing transition from freshwater 
capture fisheries to aquaculture in South and Southeast Asia using a food fish systems framework.  
Other empirical applications of the systems thinking in general to fisheries and aquaculture include 
Brunton et al. (2019), who used systems thinking to understand the contribution of aquaculture to 
antibiotic resistance in Vietnam. Desbois et al. (2021) used systems thinking to identify and assess 
the feasibility of potential interventions to reduce antibiotic use in tilapia farming in Egypt. Tiller et 
al. (2014) used systems thinking to assess stakeholder adaptive capacity to salmon aquaculture 
policies in Norway. Other studies have used systems thinking to examine marine fisheries 
management systems in China (Su et al., 2022), South Africa (Sowman, 2011), and the United States 
(McGuire and Harris, 2011); the impact of Europe’s coastal fisheries policy (Symes et al., 2015); 
and social-ecological links that can inform a transition toward sustainability in small-scale fisheries 
(Kittinger et al., 2013). 
4. Overview of tools, methods, and approaches for policy analysis and evaluation in AqFS 
Numerous studies in the literature have employed or discussed different tools, methods, or 
approaches for policy analysis with empirical applications in aquaculture and fisheries, and in other 
disciplines. A range of research tools, methods, and approaches—grouped into the following 
categories—can be used to systematically investigate the content of policies, implementation, and 
processes, or the effectiveness of policy interventions (see Annex 2 for a summary table). 
4.1. Tools for ex ante assessment of policy options 
The following tools, methods, or approaches can be employed for choosing among policy options 
or to substantively contribute to a proposed policy before implementation.  
 
17 
4.1.1. Multicriteria decision analysis 
Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) encompasses the techniques and situations in which two or 
more objectives or criteria are to be considered for a given decision. MCDA provides a methodology 
that enhances effective decision-making by providing for both logical, systematic analysis and 
imaginative creativity (Howard, 1980). The procedure permits representing the decision-maker’s 
information and preferences concerning the uncertain, complex, and dynamic features of the 
decision problem into an understandable framework to facilitate decision-making (Huang et al., 
2011; Liu, 2007).  
MCDA is used to discover and quantify decision-maker and stakeholder considerations about 
various (mostly) nonmonetary factors in order to compare alternative courses of action (Vergara-
Solana et al., 2019). Each MCDA approach involves different protocols for eliciting inputs, 
structures to represent them, algorithms to combine them, and processes to interpret and use formal 
results in actual advising or decision-making contexts. For example, MCDA can use focus groups, 
surveys, and other techniques to formally integrate the opinions of local community groups and other 
stakeholders into the decision-making process (Linkov et al., 2006).  
Probabilistic and statistical methods, including mathematical models, are used for analysis and 
decision-making under uncertainty, and the computer makes possible many practical applications. 
Vergara-Solana et al. (2019) review 24 studies that have employed MCDA methods to address 
aquaculture problems. Their review lists diverse methods to address problems with multiple 
objectives or criteria. In aquaculture, the techniques applied include multilevel dynamic models, 
objective programming, nonlinear programming, compromise programming, analytic hierarchy 
process, and geographic information system tools. MCDA methods have recently been applied to 
aquaculture in supplier selection, financial risk control, strategic planning or sectoral analysis, 
optimization of public policy, operation optimization of productive units, selection of species for 
domestication, project impact assessment (Vergara-Solana et al., 2019), and production site selection 
(Ghobadi et al., 2021). Empirical applications in the fisheries sector include analysis of group 
negotiations in fisheries co-management (Hayes and Wainger, 2022) and fisheries management, 
assessment, and conservation (Estévez and Gelcich, 2015; Rossetto et al., 2015). 
4.1.2. Cost-benefit analysis  
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a formal technique for making informed decisions on the use of 
scarce resources (Boardman, 2011; Brent, 2006; Mishan and Quah, 2020). It systematically and 
analytically compares economic benefits and costs in evaluating the desirability of policies, projects, 
or programs, often of a social nature; if the economic benefits of a policy exceed the costs, the policy 
is worthwhile and should be pursued (Rudd et al., 2003). To improve societal welfare, policies with 
higher ratios of benefits to costs should be pursued first.  
According to Boardman (2011), conducting a CBA involves nine basic steps: (1) specify the set of 
alternative projects; (2) decide whose benefits and costs matter; (3) identify the impact categories, 
catalogue them, and select measurement indicators; (4) predict the impacts quantitatively over the 
life of the project; (5) attach monetary values to all impacts; (6) discount benefits and costs to obtain 
 
18 
present values; (7) compute the net present value of each alternative; (8) perform sensitivity analysis; 
and (9) make a recommendation. 
The CBA method has been widely applied in evaluating environmental policy (Cullen, 1994; Pearce, 
1998; Pearce et al., 2006). It evaluates in monetary terms the costs and benefits—such as health 
impacts, property damage, ecosystem losses, and welfare effects—of policies and programs. Some 
benefits or damages occur over the long term, some occur over several generations, and some are 
irreversible (e.g., global warming, biodiversity losses). The method can be used to estimate impacts 
on future generations, irreversible losses, and equity or sustainability issues (Pearce et al., 2006). In 
the absence of market prices, economic benefits are calculated by summing consumer surplus (the 
difference between what people are willing to pay and what they actually have to pay for an 
economic commodity) and producer surplus (the difference between a producer’s total revenue and 
total variable cost or, at the margin, between price and marginal cost). Quantifying producer surplus 
for specific situations requires cost and earning surveys. 
In the field of aquaculture and fisheries, CBA has been applied to policy analysis of tropical marine 
reserves to demonstrate whether marine reserves lead to sustained socioeconomic benefits (Rudd et 
al., 2003). Marine reserves are considered to be a central tool for marine ecosystem-based 
management in tropical inshore fisheries. The policy analysis in Rudd et al. considered the full range 
of economic costs and benefits, including the impact of social capital on the costs of managing 
fisheries, and the transaction costs of fishery management (e.g., planning and reaching agreements 
about marine reserve configuration and rules, monitoring, enforcement, and ex post opportunism 
such as free riding and rent-seeking).  Ecological services or amenities provided by marine reserves 
are considered economic commodities with a price based on their marginal use and nonuse values, 
and thus generate a consumer surplus even though they are not traded in established markets.  
Rudd et al. (2003) find that, among the empirical challenges of using CBA, many ecosystem services 
provided by marine reserves are nonmarket in nature and difficult to value, especially in developing 
countries with limited funds for economic studies. Additionally, data on appropriately disaggregated 
costs of fisheries management and governance are unavailable in many developing countries. 
Moreover, evidence quantifying the ecological benefits of marine reserves is relatively sparse 
because of the ad hoc design of many reserves and the inherent difficulties of ascertaining causal 
links in the marine environment.  
4.1.3. SWOT analysis 
SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis uses a framework of internal 
strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats as a simple way to assess how best 
to implement a policy or strategy (Start and Hovland, 2004). SWOT analysis can be used at many 
different stages of a policy process or project to structure a review or discussion before planning. It 
can be applied broadly, or a small subcomponent of the strategy can be singled out for detailed 
analysis. 
Assessing the current state of a policy or project requires an assessment of internal capacity which 
reveals the existing resources, skills and abilities, and the current problems. An assessment of the 
 
19 
external environment focuses on what is going on outside the policy process or project, or on areas 
that do not yet affect the strategy but could do so—either positively or negatively. According to Start 
and Hovland (2004), the following guiding questions are helpful in carrying out a SWOT analysis 
of a project. What type of policy influence does the project currently do best? Where has it had the 
most success? What types of policy influencing skills and capacities does the project have? In what 
areas have they been used most effectively? Who are the strongest allies in policy influence? When 
have they worked with the project to create policy impact? What are the main strengths and 
weaknesses of the project? Why? What opinions do others outside the project hold? 
Babatunde et al. (2021a) reviewed literature on qualitative SWOT analyses applied to aquaculture 
and fisheries in Africa, and Rimmer et al. (2013) conducted a review and qualitative SWOT analysis 
of aquaculture development in Indonesia. A major input in Rimmer et al. was a background study 
of the policy, economic, environmental, social, and technical elements of aquaculture development 
in Indonesia, from which areas for aquaculture policy development were identified. Other examples 
of qualitative SWOT analyses include studies of the food system in Madagascar (Sarter et al., 2010), 
and fish health and aquaculture sustainability in Turkey (Kayıs, 2019). As part of their review, 
Babatunde et al. (2021a) also conducted a quantitative SWOT analysis of key aquaculture players 
in Africa, which was used to determine the competitive position of the aquaculture sectors of the 
compared countries (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda) as a basis for aquaculture policies 
and road maps. Another study conducted a quantitative SWOT analysis of key aquaculture species 
in South Africa (Babatunde et al., 2021b). 
4.1.4. Bioeconometric and bioeconomic models 
Economic or econometric models have been widely employed in quantitative analysis for economic 
policy evaluations (Abbring and Heckman, 2008) and applied in the study of aquaculture production 
and its sustainability (Peñalosa Martinell et al., 2020). Econometrics is the application of 
mathematical statistics to economic data to give empirical support to models constructed by 
mathematical economics and to obtain numerical results (Wooldridge, 2015). Thus, an econometric 
model is a representation of an economic system that uses empirical data based on statistical 
inferences to give sustenance to economic theory. The econometric model is designed to fit the data 
observed in real situations with the aim of obtaining analytic parameters that adjust to real-world 
observations, mainly using theoretical bases to establish functional relationships, statistical models, 
and inference. An economic model, by contrast, is a conceptual (or theoretical) model that allows 
analyzing the behavior of a complex system by using differential equations (Peñalosa Martinell et 
al., 2020). An econometric model applied to biological systems is called a bioeconometric model, 
because it considers the biological characteristics of cultured organisms (such as growth or 
mortality), the economic aspects, and the interaction between them (Llorente and Luna, 2016). A 
bioeconomic model consists of a biological model, which describes the production system, and an 
economic model, which relates the production system to market prices and resource constraints 
(Cacho, 1997). In many cases, theoretical (bioeconomic) models are parameterized by econometric 
techniques using data obtained in an experiment.  
 
20 
Bioeconomic models have wide applications in aquaculture as a crucial tool for improving the 
efficiency of decision-making processes (Llorente and Luna, 2016). They consist of the use of 
mathematics to model the behavior of biological systems conditioned by biological, environmental, 
economic, and technical factors. They allow a wide range of simulations, predictions, and necessary 
analyzes to optimize sustainable production of a business in an increasingly competitive industry. 
Several studies have applied bioeconomic models in fisheries research (Anderson and Seijo, 2010; 
Pascoe et al., 2016; Prellezo et al., 2012) and aquaculture (Bunting et al., 2013; Bunting and Shpigel, 
2009; Cacho, 1997; Duarte et al., 2022; Janssen et al., 2017). 
4.1.5. Computable general equilibrium simulation models  
Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are systems of equations that represent both the 
production and consumption sides of all markets in the economy, and the prices and trade volumes 
that make those markets clear. A multisector CGE model can be used for simulation and quantitative 
analysis of the effects of policies and external shocks on the domestic economy. The social 
accounting matrix, which portrays the system of interindustry links in the economy, provides the 
conceptual framework for linking together different components of the CGE model (Robinson et al., 
1999). That matrix provides a schematic portrayal of the circular flow of income in the economy: 
from activities and commodities, to factors of production, to institutions, and back to activities and 
commodities (Robinson et al., 1999). The presentation of equations of the core CGE model follows 
this same pattern of income generation. The empirical CGE model is usually developed and 
implemented in the software General Algebraic Modeling System, which is designed to make 
complex mathematical models easier to construct and understand. The model is written as a set of 
simultaneous equations, most of them nonlinear, and the equations define the behavior of the 
different actors. The CGE model framework can be applied to different settings: the world (divided 
into multiple regions), countries or regions within countries, villages, and even households (Lofgren 
et al., 2002). For example, the Rural Investment and Policy Analysis model, developed by the 
International Fund for Agricultural Development and International Food Policy Research Institute, 
can be used as a simulation laboratory for building macro-models. However, quality data and key 
parameters are needed from other tools such as stakeholder mapping, value chain analysis, 
production system differentiation, and market outlook modeling. 
 
CGE models have been widely applied in economic analysis to analyze feedback effects of policy 
measures across sectors and regions. Empirical applications of CGE models to aquaculture include 
the following studies that calibrated CGE models using primary data obtained from rural household 
surveys in aquaculture zones. Filipski and Belton (2018) used a local economy-wide impact 
evaluation model, which nests fish farm models within a general equilibrium model of the local 
economy, to examine the impact of aquaculture on the incomes and labor market outcomes of rural 
households in Myanmar. Gronau et al. (2020) used a village CGE model to investigate whether 
aquaculture improves local livelihoods and potentially counteracts local overfishing in a rural region 
in Namibia with current problems of malnutrition, poverty, and fish resource overexploitation.  
 
21 
Other applications of CGE models to aquaculture and fisheries include studying the gains of 
integrating sector-wise pollution regulation in Danish crop production and aquaculture (Jacobsen et 
al., 2016); the effects of aquaculture expansion and increased input productivity on poverty reduction 
in Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania (Kaliba et al., 2007); and, in the United States, the impacts of shocks 
to Alaskan fisheries (Seung and Waters, 2010; Waters and Seung, 2010) and the interactions between 
aquaculture and capture fisheries in the context of ecosystem-based management in coastal New 
England (Jin, 2012).  
4.1.6. Multilevel models 
Multilevel models, also called multidimensional or hierarchical models, are used to analyze data with 
a hierarchical or nested structure; response variables are measured at the lowest level of the hierarchy 
and modeled as a function of predictor variables measured at that level and higher (Wagner et al., 
2006). For example, a multilevel data structure may consist of measurements taken on individual 
fish (lower level) nested within lakes or streams (higher level). The standard econometric methods 
of analysis for cross-sectional or longitudinal data are applied to estimate multilevel models, often 
using generalized least squares methods (Yang and Schmidt, 2021).  
According to Peugh (2010), conducting multilevel modeling analyses involves seven major steps: 
(1) clarifying the research question under investigation, (2) choosing the correct parameter 
estimation method (e.g., full information or restricted maximum likelihood), (3) assessing whether 
multilevel modeling is needed, (4) building the lower-level model, (5) building the higher-level 
model, (6) reporting multilevel effect sizes, and (7) testing competing multilevel models using the 
likelihood ratio test. 
Fisheries research has employed multilevel models that account for multilevel data structures as a 
framework for modeling and statistical analysis in fisheries biology (Wagner et al., 2006), to study 
fisheries discards (Viana et al., 2013), or as a decision support model (Pan et al., 2001). Some 
applications in aquaculture (Sylvia and Anderson, 1993; Sylvia et al., 1996) have aimed at 
generating economic policy information for salmon aquaculture policy development in the United 
States, using a dynamic multiobjective, multilevel policy model for net-pen aquaculture 
development with effluent taxes as a policy instrument. 
4.2. Tools for ex post assessment of existing policy  
The following tools, methods, or approaches can be employed for policy evaluation or to legitimize 
policy choices that have already been adopted. 
4.2.1. Impact assessments 
The impact assessment process aims to structure and support the development of policies (Malvarosa 
et al., 2019). Impact assessment has six well-established forms: (1) policy impact assessment, (2) 
environmental impact assessment, (3) strategic environmental assessment, (4) social impact 
assessment, (5) health impact assessment, and (6) sustainability assessment (Pope et al., 2013). It 
 
22 
involves assessing distinct alternatives to achieve a specified policy objective, providing the basis 
for choosing the policy with the best net benefit. Current practice in impact assessment uses various 
analytical tools to evaluate the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable 
development, for example, using the sustainable development indicators, quantitative models, and 
participatory approaches, including stakeholder involvement (Bezlepkina et al., 2011; De Smedt, 
2010; Morgan, 2012; Morris and Therivel, 2001). 
According to a review by Adelle and Weiland (2012), policy assessment most commonly includes 
regulatory impact assessment and sustainability impact assessment. These broad types of policy 
assessment in turn harness a range of policy assessment tools and methods such as CBA, scenario 
analysis, and computer modeling. Policy assessment seeks to inform decision-makers by predicting 
and evaluating the potential impacts of policy options. Among many existing systems, the European 
Commission’s Impact Assessment system is identified as the leading way of conducting policy 
assessment in Europe (Adelle and Weiland, 2012; Podhora et al., 2013). It is considered a very 
integrated assessment system because it includes social, economic, and environmental impacts both 
inside and outside the European Union (EU) of the EU’s most significant policies.  
Empirical applications to aquaculture include environmental impact assessments of aquaculture 
projects (Rodríguez-Luna et al., 2021). In fisheries, empirical work includes a sustainability impact 
assessment (Malvarosa et al., 2019), an evolutionary impact assessment (Laugen et al., 2014), 
economic impact assessments (Leung and Pooley, 2001; Torell et al., 2020), and social impact 
assessments (Feeney, 2013; Hattam et al., 2014; Hiruy and Wallo, 2018).  
4.2.2. Comparative advantage assessment approaches 
Comparative advantage, an economic concept that helps characterize resource allocation and 
specialization patterns, reflects the difference between benefits and (opportunity) costs. For example, 
the more specialized a country is in a market compared to other countries, the greater comparative 
advantage it has in that market (Cai and Leung, 2008). Comparative advantage provides useful 
information for policy decision-making, such as a basic explanation of the international pattern of 
specialization in production and trade, or guidelines for government policies on resource allocation 
and trade (Cai and Leung, 2008). For instance, assessing a country’s comparative advantage in 
different aquaculture activities can provide useful information for decision-making regarding 
efficient resource allocation in aquaculture development.  
Comparative advantage assessment has two common approaches: the domestic resource costs 
(DRC) approach and the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) approach, reviewed in detail by 
Cai and Leung (2008). The DRC approach uses social profitability to measure comparative 
advantage—the greater the profitability, the stronger the advantage (Cai and Leung, 2008). Social 
profitability needs to be gauged under “shadow” instead of market prices. As opposed to observable 
market prices, shadow prices are social prices reflecting the value of social benefits or costs. 
Empirical DRC analyses for policy decision-making are often conducted using the policy analysis 
matrix approach (Cai and Leung, 2008; Hutajulu et al., 2019).  
 
23 
The RCA approach uses ex post specialization patterns to infer comparative advantage patterns—
that is, a country’s actual high specialization in an activity implies that it has strong comparative 
advantage in that activity (Balassa, 1965). It is called “revealed” (as opposed to actual) comparative 
advantage because, rather than reflecting true comparative advantage, high specialization could 
reflect the influence of policy interventions or distortions such as tariffs or other trade barriers (Cai 
and Leung, 2008). RCA provides a systematic framework for comparing specialization patterns 
across countries. The most widely adopted RCA index in empirical studies is the standard Balassa’s 
RCA index (Balassa, 1965).  
Aquaculture- or fisheries-related empirical applications of the DRC approach have studied the  
comparative advantage of Asian countries in shrimp exports (Ling et al., 1999); the comparative 
advantage of shrimp farming in Asia (Shang et al., 1998); the competitiveness of eel aquaculture in 
China, Japan, and Taiwan (Lee et al., 2003); economic policy in the development of capture fisheries 
in Jayapura City, Indonesia (Hutajulu et al., 2019); the competitiveness of fish farming in Nigeria 
(Osawe and Salman, 2016); and the effects of input policies on the profitability of fish farming in 
Nigeria (Adesiyan, 2017); and the impact of different policy options on profits of private catfish 
farms in Arkansas, United States (Kaliba and Engle, 2003). Empirical applications of RCA 
approaches in aquaculture include studies assessing the export performance of major cultured shrimp 
producers in the Japanese and US markets (Ling et al., 1996), and US antidumping petitions and 
RCA of seven shrimp-exporting countries (Chang et al., 2019). 
4.2.3. Life cycle assessment  
Life cycle assessment (LCA) also has applications in aquaculture. An ISO-standardized 
methodology, LCA quantifies the impacts on ecosystems, human health, and natural resources of 
products and systems throughout their entire life cycle—that is, from the extraction of raw materials 
through their production and use or operation up to their final decommissioning and disposal 
(Bohnes et al., 2019). It also compiles and evaluates the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental 
impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle (Hellweg and Milà i Canals, 2014). It is useful 
for identifying the environmental hot spots of aquaculture systems and comparing them with respect 
to their embedded environmental impacts. Doing so can provide useful information to policymakers 
and decision-makers when it comes to encouraging development of specific types of farm 
installations or introducing regulations on excessively polluting processes. Identification of 
environmental hot spots helps to focus development of more eco-efficient aquaculture systems and 
can also help consumers select products that meet minimum environmental requirements. 
Bohnes et al. (2019) reviewed studies of several seafood farming systems to quantify their impacts 
on the environment. The studies conducted quantitative analyses to explore which impacts can be 
identified as dominating and to compare different types of aquaculture systems. On the basis of their 
review, Bohnes et al. provide recommendations to decision- and policymakers in the aquaculture 
sector. They recommend the systematic use of LCA in the design of new aquaculture systems or 
policies, or in the evaluation and optimization of existing ones, to promote an environmentally 
sustainable aquaculture sector. 
 
24 
Ziegler et al. (2016) noted the use of LCA to quantify environmental impacts of products throughout 
their supply chain. Through their review of studies with empirical applications of LCA to fisheries 
management, Zieglar et al. divided LCA into five steps: (1) define product, goal, and specific 
methods; (2) collect specific and generic data on resource use, production, and emissions in each 
step; (3) calculate results for example emissions; (4) analyze results, sensitivity, or uncertainty and 
revisit steps 1–3 if needed; and (5) apply the results in policy support, fisheries management, creating 
sourcing strategies, product development, or certification. Other literature reviews have looked at 
methodologies and LCA of aquaculture systems (Henriksson et al., 2012) and the use of LCA for 
the environmental assessment of fisheries (Avadí and Fréon, 2013; Evans et al., 2011).  
4.3. Tools for mapping and understanding policy processes 
The following tools, methods or approaches can be employed ex ante or ex post to understand policy 
processes, policy development, and policy implementation. 
4.3.1. Social network analysis 
The social network analysis (SNA) method is used to map policy processes, analyze policy 
networks, and examine policy implementation (Fischer, 2011; Mischen and Jackson, 2008; Serrat, 
2017). It focuses on social relationships and uses a wide range of methods to describe the structure 
of networks and people’s places within those networks (Schiffer and Waale, 2008). Its underlying 
idea is that the structure of networks determines both the success of the individual and how an 
organization or society acts and develops. As such, SNA tries to understand social and political 
situations by focusing on their formal and informal structures (Aberman et al., 2009). Because of its 
focus on relations among actors, it tends to study whole populations by means of census, rather than 
by sample. When the population is too large for a census, snowball methods or purposeful sampling 
are recommended (Aberman et al., 2009). To understand the policy process, studies can also employ 
standard survey research methods such as literature review, semi-structured interviews with key 
policy actors, or focus group discussions with local stakeholders (Chambers et al., 2012; Okello et 
al., 2015). 
 
Some empirical policy analysis studies using SNA have been based on the work of the International 
Food Policy Research Institute. For example, Schiffer and Waale (2008) used SNA to study 
multistakeholder water governance in the White Volta Basin of Ghana. They developed an 
innovative empirical research tool (Net-Map) to better understand multistakeholder governance by 
gathering in-depth information about governance networks and goals, power, and influence of 
actors. The Net-Map tool, which combined social network visualization with the power-mapping 
tool that collects data about the perceived power of different actors within a policy field, collected 
qualitative and quantitative information in a structured and comparable way. Similarly, Aberman et 
al. (2009) used SNA to study Nigeria’s fertilizer policy process and the role evidence-based research 
played in it. They used the Net-Map tool by combining SNA with principles of power mapping and 
stakeholder analysis approaches. Their examination of the policy process allowed them to trace how 
 
25 
the actual policy process took place, the actors involved and the links and interactions between them, 
and the degree to which research-based information played a role in the policy development. Schiffer 
and Hauck (2010) present a detailed description of Net-Map.  
 
Policy network analysis (Rhodes, 2008), another form of SNA, has been employed in understanding 
governance structures for implementation of marine environmental policy in the United Kingdom 
(Bainbridge et al., 2011). In that study, it provided an insight into the balance and patterns of 
responsibility, accountability, authority, resources, relationships, and power in the policy process, 
and enabled an understanding of policymaking and implementation. 
 
Empirical applications of SNA in aquaculture have studied key players in salmon aquaculture 
development in Canada (Maxwell and Filgueira, 2020), the effect of social and economic drivers on 
choosing aquaculture as a coastal livelihood in Tanzania (Slater et al., 2013), the impacts of 
aquaculture on social networks in the mangrove systems of northern Vietnam (Orchard et al., 2015), 
the effect of network-based targeting on the diffusion of good aquaculture practices among shrimp 
producers in Vietnam (Lee et al., 2019), and the international trade network of aquatic products (Yu 
and Ma, 2020). SNA has also been used to study networks and collaborations among researchers in 
fisheries science (Olson and Pinto da Silva, 2021), for mapping the global network of fisheries 
science collaboration (Syed et al., 2019), to study fishery management as a governance network 
(Hartley, 2010), and to study how social networks support or constrain the transition to co-
management of small-scale fisheries and marine reserves in Jamaica (S. M. Alexander et al., 2015). 
4.3.2. Stakeholder analysis 
Stakeholder analysis is used for generating knowledge about actors (individuals and organizations) 
so as to understand their behavior, intentions, interrelations, and interests, and for assessing the 
influence and resources they bring to decision-making or implementation processes (Varvasovszky 
and Brugha, 2000). Incorporating stakeholders’ opinions improves decision-making processes and 
project implementation (Kivits, 2011). Stakeholder analysis can be used, for example, to conduct a 
comprehensive policy analysis that produces new knowledge about policy-making processes, and to 
predict policy development, implement a specific policy, or obtain an organizational advantage in 
one’s dealings with other stakeholders (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000). The scope of its 
application in policy analysis can range from understanding the roles of stakeholders in the evolution 
of the policy context and processes, to outlining more long-term and broadly-focused policy 
directions (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000).  
 
Conducting a policy analysis requires first identifying the different components of the policy issue 
or problem; stakeholder analysis can then be used to map the positions of the actors in relation to 
the problem and each other. Stakeholders—the actors who have an interest in the problem under 
consideration, are affected by the problem, or have (or could have) an active or passive influence on 
the decision-making and implementation processes—can include individuals, organizations, 
 
26 
different individuals within an organization, and networks of individuals and/or organizations such 
as alliance groups. Data collection for stakeholder analysis uses primary sources (such as face-to-
face interviews using checklists, semi-structured and structured interviews, and focus group or 
informal discussions) and/or secondary sources. Findings may be presented using matrices, charts, 
position maps, network maps, or figures. 
 
In AqFS research, stakeholder analysis has been employed in empirical analyses of sustainable 
aquaculture development (Bunting, 2010), integrated multitrophic aquaculture (Alexander et al., 
2016), ecosystem-based marine aquaculture expansion (Galparsoro et al., 2020), supply chains of 
trout and seabass in Italy (Mulazzani et al., 2021), Norwegian aquaculture (Bailey and Eggereide, 
2020; Chu et al., 2010), marine fisheries management in Southeast Asia (Pomeroy et al., 2016), 
the UK’s agricultural and fisheries systems under Brexit (Stewart et al., 2019), fishery stakeholder 
engagement and marine spatial planning in the United States (Nutters and Pinto da Silva, 2012), and 
marine aquaculture partnerships in the United States (Siddiki and Goel, 2015),. 
4.4. Other tools that can inform policy design  
The following tools, methods, or approaches can be employed ex ante to support policy design and 
development, support policy processes, and provide important information for policy decision-
making. 
4.4.1. Value chain analysis 
A value chain describes the full range of activities required to bring a product or service from 
conception, through the different phases of production, distribution to consumers, and final disposal 
after use (Porter, 1985). The value chain is the basic tool for diagnosing and enhancing competitive 
advantage; it divides a firm into the discrete activities it performs in designing, producing, 
marketing, and distributing its product (Porter, 1985). Value chain analysis (VCA) is important for 
policy and practice because understanding value chains in an industry allows policymakers and 
practitioners to provide relevant and appropriate support to local enterprises so they can compete in 
the global economy, and to improve the earning opportunities for local people (Schmitz, 2005). 
International competitiveness of local enterprises requires an effective domestic value chain. VCA 
provides a framework for sector-specific action because it can help policymakers identify 
bottlenecks and determine which bottlenecks deserve priority attention from government (Schmitz, 
2005). 
Kaplinsky (2004) notes three analytical components of VCA that can reveal distributional and policy 
implications: (1) the dynamics of rents within the chain, (2) the governance of the chains, and (3) 
the systemic and transnational character of the chains (systemic efficiency gains). Therefore, VCA 
can throw more light on the dynamics of income distribution and its determinants. The dynamic 
shifting of producer rents through the value chain, and the processes through which key actors 
 
27 
provide governance to production that occurs on a global basis, provides important insights into the 
policy challenges confronting both private and public actors.  
Global VCA has been widely used as an analytical tool to explain the dynamics of economic 
globalization and international trade, and the wide variation of benefits accruing (or not) from 
participation in different value chains (Bush et al., 2019; Kaplinsky, 2004). VCA provides valuable 
insights into policy formulation and implementation by charting the growing disjuncture between 
global economic activity and global income distribution and the causal explanations for this outcome 
(Kaplinsky, 2000). It can be used to map and analyze value chains, using qualitative and/or 
quantitative research tools such as participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus group 
discussions, and questionnaires (Hellin and Meijer, 2006).  
Empirical applications of VCA in fisheries include the assessment of power, profits and payments 
for ecosystem services in Hilsa fisheries in Bangladesh (Porras et al., 2017); the farmed tilapia value 
chain in Ghana (Anane-Taabeah et al., 2016); seasonal flows of economic benefits in small-scale 
fisheries in Liberia (Jueseah et al., 2020); gender analysis of the aquaculture value chain in Nigeria 
and northeast Vietnam (Veliu et al., 2009); small-scale fisheries management (Rosales et al., 2017); 
the distribution of economic returns in small-scale fisheries for international markets (Purcell et al., 
2017); tourism as a driver of conflicts and changes in fisheries value chains in marine protected areas 
(Lopes et al., 2017); and upgrading and exploitation in the fishing industry (Hamilton-Hart and 
Stringer, 2016). In aquaculture, VCA has been employed in mapping the tilapia aquaculture value 
chain in Ghana (Asiedu et al., 2016) and in studying the aquaculture feed sector in Egypt (El-Sayed 
et al., 2015), gender and aquaculture value chains (Kruijssen et al., 2018), aquaculture value chains 
in Asia (Jespersen et al., 2014; Ponte et al., 2014), and commercialization and upgrading in the 
aquaculture value chain in Zambia (Kaminski et al., 2018). 
4.4.2. Machine learning techniques 
Machine learning is the study and computer modeling of learning processes in their multiple 
manifestations (Carbonell et al., 1983). It and data mining are branches of artificial intelligence that 
use the explosive growth in data to analyze the association between causes and effects, predict 
imminent problems, and provide solutions (Gladju et al., 2022). Data mining is the computing 
process of discovering patterns and extracting useful information from large data sets, whereas 
machine learning is the ability of a computer to use complex algorithms and learn from mined data 
sets without being exclusively programmed (Gladju et al., 2022). Machine learning takes data as 
given, without any theoretical assumptions about the relationship between different variables; the 
computer then tries to identify patterns and transfers these findings into a computational model.  
Several recent studies have applied machine learning techniques to aquaculture and fisheries. As 
reviewed by Gladju et al. (2022), empirical applications of machine learning techniques in 
aquaculture include monitoring and control of production environment, fish biomass, and 
 
28 
optimization of feed use. In fisheries management, empirical applications include the surveillance 
of fishing, catch composition, and ecosystem-fisheries associations. Other applications relate to 
environment monitoring, fish processing, and marketing. More examples of empirical applications 
include mapping aquaculture waterbodies in Bangladesh (Ferriby et al., 2021), studying smart 
aquaculture systems (Vo et al., 2021), recirculating aquaculture systems in China (Chen et al., 2021), 
prediction models of aquaculture in Malaysia (Rahman et al., 2021), studying environmental impacts 
of salmon farming in Norway (Frühe et al., 2021), and studying intelligent fish aquaculture, 
including the information evaluation of fish biomass, the identification and classification of fish, 
behavioral analysis, and prediction of water quality parameters (Zhao et al., 2021).  
5. Policy issues, policy solutions, and lessons from AqFS research 
This section examines the policy issues, policy solutions, and lessons emerging from the literature 
on policy analysis and evaluation. Two kinds of policies are analyzed or evaluated in the literature. 
One type consists of broad policies—legal documents with a set of visions and broad objectives at 
the regional, national, or subnational level, (e.g., the CFP, national aquaculture or fisheries policies). 
Such policy analysis often involves policy content analysis, policy implementation, and policy 
impact analysis (ex ante and ex post). The other type consists of specific policies—specific laws, 
legislation, or legal procedures that directly affect prices, impose costs, and provide a financial 
incentive or penalties for violations (e.g., input subsidies, import restrictions, individual transferable 
quotas). The rest of this section presents selected case studies illustrating these types of policy 
analysis and evaluation. Annex 3 presents a summary table with empirical case study examples on 
policy analysis and evaluation in AqFS. 
5.1. Policy content analysis  
Policy content analysis in AqFS research has examined inconsistencies or conflicting policies, and 
whether policies are up to date or consistent with international or regional policies. The results 
demonstrate the importance of aligning national AqFS policies with those of public health and 
nutrition in order to achieve the objectives of increasing food security and AqFS sustainability 
(Koehn et al., 2022). In addition, realizing the potential contribution of aquatic foods such as 
nutrient-rich fish and shellfish to healthier food systems will require more targeted and systematic 
policy approaches. The literature acknowledges the importance of development partners in designing 
better national policies. For example, Koehn et al. (2022) find that the presence of development 
partners in a country results in a higher probability of cross-sector integration of its fisheries and 
public health nutrition policies. This finding suggests that development agencies such as FAO and 
WorldFish, which promote aquatic foods in healthy diets, help to improve the level of inclusion 
between fisheries and health policies. 
 
Evaluations of national aquatic food policy documents (enacted laws and policies) in many countries 
reveal unequal distributions of benefits in the global food system, which are associated with barriers 
 
29 
to participation in AqFS (Hicks et al., 2022). The unequal distribution of AqFS benefits is equated 
to social injustice: whereas global production, trade, and consumption of food have escalated, the 
AqFS sectors have become more concentrated and the number of food-insecure people continues to 
rise. Dynamics that can lead to poverty traps are created by economic barriers associated with 
distributional injustices that limit wealth-based benefits but create welfare-based dependencies with 
livelihoods more dependent on the AqFS. National policies have mainly addressed economic 
barriers related to wealth and trade (particularly in southern Africa) and, to a lesser extent, the 
political or social barriers (such as gender and age) to participation in AqFS. A focus on overcoming 
economic barriers in the production of aquatic foods and social barriers in the consumption of aquatic 
foods is likely to reinforce divisions of labor shaped by traditional social and cultural norms. 
 
The literature emphasizes the importance of gender equality considerations in AqFS policy and 
sustainable development. For example, to study the efficacy of gender equality priorities, intentions 
and impacts, Lawless et al. (2022) evaluated the policies and practices that influence small-scale 
fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Gender equality is considered a determinant of social resilience, 
adaptive capacity, and social-ecological and environmental outcomes. Lawless et al. find that policy 
commitments to gender equality, although common, often become diluted and reoriented in practice. 
In order to drive communal- to societal-level change, AqFS policy and practice need to adequately 
confront the challenges of rising social inequality, and of maintaining stable and resilient socio-
ecological systems. 
 
The literature highlights pollution of marine ecosystems as one of the most serious forms of 
environmental degradation, which requires regulatory efforts by both domestic and international 
policymakers. Using a case study of election manifestos of political parties in Germany, Tosun 
(2011) examined questions about how much attention policymakers pay to the issue of marine 
pollution, how the level of attention has changed over time, and whether policy proposals focus on 
national or global marine ecosystems. Their empirical findings suggest that policymakers have 
consistently acknowledged the need to protect marine ecosystems and that marine policy proposals 
need a more global scope. Thus, domestic political actors do elaborate policy options for reducing 
marine pollution, even though it is a predominantly transboundary problem. The level of attention 
to the problem of marine pollution depends, however, on the marine policy agenda, which varies 
considerably across political parties.  
 
Some studies have assessed the policy design and interpretation of aquaculture policies. For 
example, a case study in Florida and Virginia examined the relationships between policy legitimacy, 
coerciveness, and enforcement in affecting policy interpretations (Siddiki, 2014). The results provide 
insights into the policy- and decision-making processes: (1) perceptions of regulatory coerciveness 
largely depend on the substantive focus of individual directives; (2) lenient enforcement of 
regulations leads to more relaxed interpretations of directives; and (3) perceptions of policy 
legitimacy sometimes temper perceptions of policy coerciveness.  
 
30 
Other studies have evaluated the regulatory and governance frameworks for aquaculture. These 
frameworks are becoming more inclusive by providing for civil engagement in the context of the 
marine environment. For example, Peel and Lloyd (2008) analyzed the broad range of environmental 
and consumer regulations associated with aquaculture production in Scotland and the introduction 
of statutory planning controls over the development of aquaculture installations. They found 
evidence of an explicit attempt to design appropriate forms of governance that are open, 
participative, accountable, coherent, and effective. Their results indicate that the regulation of 
aquaculture is maturing into a potential form of modern governance and includes evolving state–
market–civil relations and the particular institutions associated with planning and governance.  
5.2. Policy implementation evaluation  
Policy implementation evaluations in the literature have analyzed broader national policies such as 
the EU’s CFP, which has received much attention and criticism in the literature regarding its 
implementation and impact. The CFP is criticized for legitimacy, credibility, and compliance 
problems (Linke et al., 2011). It has been criticized for not fulfilling its aim of enhancing the 
sustainability of fish stocks or improving the economic competitiveness of the fishing industry in 
the EU (Daw and Gray, 2005; Khalilian et al., 2010), despite EU government reforms aimed at 
enhancing governance quality (Aguado et al., 2021; Frost and Andersen, 2006; Salomon et al., 
2014). For instance, a 2002 revision was to involve fisheries representatives, nongovernmental 
organizations, and other stakeholders in the policy process through Regional Advisory Councils, 
however current practice only peripherally includes stakeholders in the knowledge-generation stage 
(Linke et al., 2011). While in 2009, the most important reform steps were the introduction of 
maximum sustainable yield as the new management target, a landing obligation for bycatch, and a 
governance shift toward regions (Salomon et al., 2014). However, marine populations in Europe are 
declining due to problems such as lax enforcement of fisheries management by state members and 
high economic losses experienced by fishers and coastal communities (Da Rocha et al., 2012). 
Europe’s coastal fisheries are under increasing stress from internal and external pressures for change 
(Davies et al., 2019). In response to the failures of the CFP, proposals for effective fisheries 
governance include new governance mechanisms and policy solutions such as stakeholder 
participation in decision-making processes, co-governance, interactive governance, and knowledge 
integration (Aguado et al., 2021; Linke et al., 2020, 2011; Symes, 2006; 2015). Developing spaces 
for dialogue and evolving shared norms within participatory, democratic, and flexible governance 
processes will facilitate collaboration among stakeholder groups at different institutional levels 
(Aguado et al., 2021). Doing so will likely increase the credibility, legitimacy, and acceptance of 
fisheries policies, thereby enhancing fisheries governance quality and sustainability.  
 
Other studies have evaluated implementation of national policies on marine conservation. For 
example, Marine protected areas (MPAs) are proclaimed as powerful policy tools for biodiversity 
conservation of marine areas, wildlife and habitats, and fisheries management (Edgar et al., 2014). 
MPAs are sections of the ocean where a government has restricted fishing and other human activities 
 
31 
to conserve habitats and populations (Balmford et al., 2004). Establishing and maintaining MPAs 
should be a priority for all countries, especially those that have committed to protecting at least 10 
percent of their marine habitats by signing the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 
(Chandra and Idrisova, 2011). However, MPAs are sometimes challenged for the social impacts and 
conflicts they may generate (Agardy et al., 2003). For example, in the archipelago of Fernando de 
Noronha MPA of Brazil, Lopes et al. (2017) found that tourism drove conflicts and changes in 
fisheries value chains. They recommended setting stricter limits to the number of tourists visiting 
the MPA in order to avoid conflicts with conservation goals through incentives for increased 
resource use. Other MPAs—such as marine reserves, in which removing or destroying natural or 
cultural resources is prohibited—can be efficient policy options when both community and state 
capacity are high, but may not be when one or the other is weak (Rudd et al., 2003). Determining 
the proper balance of the state and the community in tropical fisheries governance requires broad 
comparative studies of marine reserves and alternative policy tools.  
5. 3. Policy impact analysis 
Policy impact analyzes in the literature have evaluated impacts of aquaculture and fisheries policies. 
For example, Read and Fernandes (2003) evaluated the environmental impacts of marine 
aquaculture policies and regulations in the EU. The strategy and regulatory framework for the 
regulation, control, and monitoring of environmental impacts of marine aquaculture within the EU 
indicates that adopting appropriate environmental safeguards—including regulatory, control, and 
monitoring procedures—could minimize the environmental impact of aquaculture. In the EU, that 
impact is managed through the implementation of legislative and regulatory measures, codes of 
conduct, and codes of practice. In practice, compliance with these measures and codes requires the 
adoption of best practices and best available technology—for example, in site selection, management 
practices that minimize food waste and chemical usage, synchronized production, fallowing, and 
disease control. The legal and regulatory framework used to manage aquaculture activities in the EU 
are developed in response to national needs and international requirements. Environmental 
provisions have been introduced into all policy areas in order to emphasize the importance of 
environmental protection. For marine aquaculture, environmental protection measures have been 
established at three levels: general policy, specific measures, and regulations that control specific 
local conditions. Directives relevant to marine aquaculture include environmental quality objectives 
and environmental quality standards. They are also implicated in the integration of aquaculture 
management through integrated coastal zone management, and in certain procedural formalities 
involved in setting up aquaculture activities, such as the requirement for environmental impact 
assessment in the licensing procedures for aquaculture developments. 
Another case study analyzes environment policy compliance in fisheries management. Other studies 
have used economic models in policy evaluations, for example, to study the impact of specific 
national policies such as input subsidies. Amankwah et al. (2016) used a double hurdle economic 
model to examine the factors that influence fish farming households’ demand for improved feed in 
the presence of an input subsidy program in Kenya. Their study tested the hypothesis that the feed 
subsidy program limits a household’s market participation decision and the intensity of demand for 
 
32 
improved feed. They found that the quantity of improved feed received from the government affects 
households’ decisions to participate in the improved feed market and that, as expected, the price of 
improved feed negatively affects the quantity purchased. Education, extension contacts, and ease of 
marketing matured fish increase household propensity to purchase improved feed commercially. 
Policies to reduce the price of improved feed, such as reductions in tariffs on imported feeds and 
feed ingredients, are recommended to foster demand for improved feed along with policies that 
facilitate household marketing of fish at reasonable prices. 
 
6. Conclusion 
This study has conducted an extensive review of the frameworks, concepts, tools, methods, and 
approaches used in the literature to analyze policies and policy-related issues in the fisheries and 
aquaculture sector. The analysis includes various topics such as aquatic food production, food and 
nutrition security, conservation, environmental impacts, sustainability, institutions, governance, and 
national or regional policies. Our review shows that different countries face many policy issues but 
that analysis on those issues is scarce.  
Despite the wide variety of frameworks concepts, tools, methods, and approaches available, only a 
few of the nonexhaustive and illustrative examples of policy issues and questions in box 1 are 
investigated in empirical analysis. More research is available on local- and community-level 
governance of fisheries, and less on national or subnational policies and regulations in AqFS. The 
few available policy studies focus on developed countries, with fewer applications in developing 
countries where aquaculture and fisheries sectors have much stronger growth. Those few studies 
provide useful and insightful policy options and guidance, and this review highlights the need for 
more such studies to address policy-related issues in the sector.   
Rigorous policy impact evaluations are scarce in aquaculture and fisheries, especially in developing 
countries. Often, the lack of quality data is the bottleneck. Data-driven and evidence-based policy 
reform and decision-making by stakeholders will require improving the quality of data collection, 
monitoring systems, and assessment for AqFS from the economic, social, and environmental 
dimensions and taking advantage of low-cost digital technologies, innovative crowdsourcing, and 
public-private partnerships.  
 
This review is a timely contribution to the scholarly literature on this subject. This paper provides a 
discussion and examples of frameworks, tools, and methods that researchers can use to analyze 
policies and policy-related issues in AqFS. The results provide insights to guide analysts, 
researchers, and policymakers as they set out to evaluate policy issues, policy processes, and policy 
impacts.  
With the high and growing global demand for aquatic foods, the fisheries and aquaculture sectors 
need to meet the growing demand for aquatic foods while curbing the negative impacts on the 
 
33 
environment and ecosystems. Therefore, appropriate policies, institutions, and governance 
mechanisms for fisheries and aquaculture remain crucial for achieving growth and sustainability. 
Moreover, continued growth in the fisheries and aquaculture sector has important implications for 
global food and nutrition security, poverty reduction and improved incomes, and achieving the 
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 
  
 
34 
References 
 
Abbring, J.H., Heckman, J.J., 2008. Dynamic Policy Analysis, in: Mátyás, L., Sevestre, P. (Eds.), 
The Econometrics of Panel Data: Fundamentals and Recent Developments in Theory and 
Practice, Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics. Springer, Berlin, 
Heidelberg, pp. 795–863.  
Aberman, N., Schiffer, E., Johnson, M., Oboh, V., 2009. Mapping the Policy Process in Nigeria: 
Examining Linkages between Research and Policy. International Food Policy Research 
Institute, Nigeria Strategy Support Program (NSSP) Background Paper 12 34. 
Adelle, C., Weiland, S., 2012. Policy assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and 
Project Appraisal 30, 25–33.  
Adesiyan, A.T., 2017. Effects of Input Policies on the Profitability of Fish Farming in Osun State, 
Nigeria. IFE Journal of Agriculture. 
Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., 
McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E., Peau, L., 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved 
issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: 
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13, 353–367.  
Aguado, S., Segado, I., Vidal, M., Pitcher, T., Lam, M., 2021. The quality of fisheries governance 
assessed using a participatory, multi-criteria framework: A case study from Murcia, Spain. 
Marine Policy 124, 104280.  
Alexander, K.A., Angel, D., Freeman, S., Israel, D., Johansen, J., Kletou, D., Meland, M., 
Pecorino, D., Rebours, C., Rousou, M., Shorten, M., Potts, T., 2016. Improving 
sustainability of aquaculture in Europe: Stakeholder dialogues on Integrated Multi-trophic 
Aquaculture (IMTA). Environmental Science & Policy 55, 96–106.  
Alexander, K.A., Potts, T.P., Freeman, S., Israel, D., Johansen, J., Kletou, D., Meland, M., 
Pecorino, D., Rebours, C., Shorten, M., Angel, D.L., 2015. The implications of aquaculture 
policy and regulation for the development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in 
Europe. Aquaculture 443, 16–23.  
Alexander, S.M., Armitage, D., Charles, A., 2015. Social networks and transitions to co-
management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries. Global Environmental 
Change 35, 213–225.  
Allison, E.H., Ratner, B.D., Åsgård, B., Willmann, R., Pomeroy, R., Kurien, J., 2012. Rights-based 
fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13, 14–29.  
Amankwah, A., Quagrainie, K.K., Preckel, P.V., 2016. Demand for improved fish feed in the 
presence of a subsidy: a double hurdle application in Kenya. Agricultural Economics 47, 
633–643.  
Anane-Taabeah, G., Quagrainie, K., Amisah, S., 2016. Assessment of farmed tilapia value chain in 
Ghana. Aquacult Int 24, 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-015-9960-1 
Anderson, J.L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., 2019. Economics of Aquaculture Policy and Regulation. 
Annual Review of Resource Economics 11, 101–123.  
Anderson, L.G., Seijo, J.C., 2010. Bioeconomics of Fisheries Management. John Wiley & Sons. 
Arthur, R.I., Skerritt, D.J., Schuhbauer, A., Ebrahim, N., Friend, R.M., Sumaila, U.R., 2022. 
Small-scale fisheries and local food systems: Transformations, threats and opportunities. 
Fish and Fisheries 23, 109–124.  
Asiedu, B., Failler, P., Beyens, Y., 2016. Enhancing aquaculture development: mapping the tilapia 
aquaculture value chain in Ghana. Reviews in Aquaculture 8, 394–402.  
 
35 
Avadí, A., Fréon, P., 2013. Life cycle assessment of fisheries: A review for fisheries scientists and 
managers. Fisheries Research 143, 21–38.  
Babatunde, A., Deborah, R.-A., Gan, M., Simon, T., 2021a. A quantitative SWOT analyses of key 
aquaculture players in Africa. Aquacult Int 29, 1753–1770.  
Babatunde, A., Deborah, R.-A., Gan, M., Simon, T., 2021b. Quantitative SWOT analysis of key 
aquaculture species in South Africa. Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries 1, 27–41.  
Bailey, J.L., Eggereide, S.S., 2020. Mapping actors and arguments in the Norwegian aquaculture 
debate. Marine Policy 115, 103898.  
Bainbridge, J.M., Potts, T., O’Higgins, T.G., 2011. Rapid Policy Network Mapping: A New 
Method for Understanding Governance Structures for Implementation of Marine 
Environmental Policy. PLOS ONE 6, e26149.  
Balassa, B., 1965. Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage1. The Manchester 
School 33, 99–123.  
Baldock, J., Manning, N., Vickerstaff, S., Mitton, L., 2011. Social Policy. OUP Oxford. 
Balmford, A., Gravestock, P., Hockley, N., McClean, C.J., Roberts, C.M., 2004. The worldwide 
costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 
9694–9697.  
Barrington, K., Ridler, N., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., Robinson, B., 2010. Social aspects of the 
sustainability of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquacult Int 18, 201–211.  
Basurto, X., Gelcich, S., Ostrom, E., 2013. The social–ecological system framework as a 
knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Global Environmental 
Change 23, 1366–1380.  
Basurto, X., Nenadovic, M., 2012. A Systematic Approach to Studying Fisheries Governance. 
Global Policy 3, 222–230.  
Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., Kooiman, J., 2013. Governability of Fisheries and 
Aquaculture: Theory and Applications, MARE Publication Series (MARE, volume 7). 
Belton, B., Rosen, L., Middleton, L., Ghazali, S., Mamun, A.-A., Shieh, J., Noronha, H.S., Dhar, 
G., Ilyas, M., Price, C., Nasr-Allah, A., Elsira, I., Baliarsingh, B.K., Padiyar, A., Rajendran, 
S., Mohan, A.B.C., Babu, R., Akester, M.J., Phyo, E.E., Soe, K.M., Olaniyi, A., 
Siriwardena, S.N., Bostock, J., Little, D.C., Phillips, M., Thilsted, S.H., 2021. COVID-19 
impacts and adaptations in Asia and Africa’s aquatic food value chains. Marine Policy 129, 
104523.  
Bénassy-Quéré, A., Pisani-Ferry, J., 2018. Economic Policy: Theory and Practice. Oxford 
University Press. 
Béné, C., 2020. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security – A review of some 
important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks. Food Sec. 12, 805–822.  
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L., Leschen, 
W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S.H., Troell, M., Williams, M., 2016. Contribution of 
Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Current 
Evidence. World Development 79, 177–196.  
Benson, D., Jordan, A., 2015. Environmental Policy: Protection and Regulation, in: Wright, J.D. 
(Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). 
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 778–783.  
Binder, C.R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. Comparison of Frameworks for 
Analyzing Social-ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 18. 
 
36 
Boardman, A.E. (Ed.), 2011. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice, 4th ed. ed, The Pearson 
series in economics. Prentice Hall, Boston. 
Bohnes, F.A., Hauschild, M.Z., Schlundt, J., Laurent, A., 2019. Life cycle assessments of 
aquaculture systems: a critical review of reported findings with recommendations for 
policy and system development. Reviews in Aquaculture 11, 1061–1079.  
Boyd, C.E., D’Abramo, L.R., Glencross, B.D., Huyben, D.C., Juarez, L.M., Lockwood, G.S., 
McNevin, A.A., Tacon, A.G.J., Teletchea, F., Tomasso Jr, J.R., Tucker, C.S., Valenti, 
W.C., 2020. Achieving sustainable aquaculture: Historical and current perspectives and 
future needs and challenges. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 51, 578–633.  
Boyd-Brown, M.J., Young, J., Moroney, D., 2022. From system to (eco)system: Policy examples 
that foster cross-sector collaboration, in: It Takes an Ecosystem: Understanding the People, 
Places, and Possibilities of Learning and Development across Settings, Current Issues in 
Out-of-School Time. Information Age Publishing, Inc., Waxhaw, NC, US, pp. 207–226. 
Brent, R.J., 2006. Applied Cost-benefit Analysis, Second Edition. Edward Elgar Publishing. 
Brownson, R.C., Chriqui, J.F., Stamatakis, K.A., 2009. Understanding Evidence-Based Public 
Health Policy. Am J Public Health 99, 1576–1583.  
Brunton, L.A., Desbois, A.P., Garza, M., Wieland, B., Mohan, C.V., Häsler, B., Tam, C.C., Le, 
P.N.T., Phuong, N.T., Van, P.T., Nguyen-Viet, H., Eltholth, M.M., Pham, D.K., Duc, P.P., 
Linh, N.T., Rich, K.M., Mateus, A.L.P., Hoque, Md.A., Ahad, A., Khan, M.N.A., Adams, 
A., Guitian, J., 2019. Identifying hotspots for antibiotic resistance emergence and selection, 
and elucidating pathways to human exposure: Application of a systems-thinking approach 
to aquaculture systems. Science of The Total Environment 687, 1344–1356.  
Bryant, B.C., 2006. NEPA Compliance in Fisheries Management: The Programmatic 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Alaskan Groundfish Fisheries and 
Implications for NEPA Reform. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 30, 441. 
Bunting, S.W., 2010. Assessing the Stakeholder Delphi for Facilitating Interactive Participation 
and Consensus Building for Sustainable Aquaculture Development. Society & Natural 
Resources 23, 758–775.  
Bunting, S.W., Bosma, R.H., van Zwieten, P.A.M., Sidik, A.S., 2013. Bioeconomic Modeling of 
Shrimp Aquaculture Strategies for the Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. Aquaculture Economics 
& Management 17, 51–70.  
Bunting, S.W., Shpigel, M., 2009. Evaluating the economic potential of horizontally integrated 
land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 294, 43–51.  
Bush, S.R., Belton, B., Little, D.C., Islam, M.S., 2019. Emerging trends in aquaculture value chain 
research. Aquaculture 498, 428–434.  
Cacho, O.J., 1997. Systems modelling and bioeconomic modelling in aquaculture. Aquaculture 
Economics & Management 1, 45–64.  
Cai, J., Leung, P., 2008. A review of comparative advantage assessment approaches in relation to 
aquaculture development, in: Species and System Selection for Sustainable Aquaculture. 
John Wiley & Sons. 
Carbonell, J.G., Michalski, R.S., Mitchell, T.M., 1983. An overview of machine learning, in: 
Michalski, R.S., Carbonell, J.G., Mitchell, T.M. (Eds.), Machine Learning. Morgan 
Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA), pp. 3–23.  
 
37 
Carter, D.P., Weible, C.M., Siddiki, S.N., Basurto, X., 2016. Integrating core concepts from the 
institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy 
designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation. Journal of 
Theoretical Politics 28, 159–185.  
CDC (2011). CDC (Center for Disease Control), National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control. Step by Step – Evaluating Violence and Injury Prevention Policies. Brief 1: 
Overview of policy evaluation. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/brief%201-a.pdf  
Chambers, D., Wilson, P., Thompson, C., Harden, M., 2012. Social Network Analysis in 
Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review. PLOS ONE 7, e41911.  
Chan, C.Y., Tran, N., Pethiyagoda, S., Crissman, C.C., Sulser, T.B., Phillips, M.J., 2019. Prospects 
and challenges of fish for food security in Africa. Global Food Security 20, 17–25.  
Chandra, A., Idrisova, A., 2011. Convention on Biological Diversity: a review of national 
challenges and opportunities for implementation. Biodivers Conserv 20, 3295–3316.  
Chang, C.-L., McAleer, M., Nguyen, D.-K., 2019. US antidumping petitions and revealed 
comparative advantage of shrimp-exporting countries. Reviews in Aquaculture 11, 782–
792.  
Chen, F., Du, Y., Qiu, T., Xu, Z., Zhou, L., Xu, J., Sun, M., Li, Y., Sun, J., 2021. Design of an 
Intelligent Variable-Flow Recirculating Aquaculture System Based on Machine Learning 
Methods. Applied Sciences 11, 6546.  
Chopin, T., Cooper, J.A., Reid, G., Cross, S., Moore, C., 2012. Open-water integrated multi-
trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification of fed 
aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture 4, 209–220.  
Chu, J., Anderson, J.L., Asche, F., Tudur, L., 2010. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Aquaculture and 
Implications for its Future: A Comparison of the U.S.A. and Norway. Marine Resource 
Economics 25, 61–76.  
Clapp, J., Moseley, W.G., Termine, P., 2020. Food security and nutrition: building a global 
narrative towards 2030. Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and 
Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. 
Cocklin, C., Moon, K., 2020. Environmental Policy, in: Kobayashi, A. (Ed.), International 
Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition). Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 227–233.  
Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S., Cisneros-Mata, M.Á., Free, C.M., Froehlich, H.E., Golden, C.D., 
Ishimura, G., Maier, J., Macadam-Somer, I., Mangin, T., Melnychuk, M.C., Miyahara, M., 
de Moor, C.L., Naylor, R., Nøstbakken, L., Ojea, E., O’Reilly, E., Parma, A.M., Plantinga, 
A.J., Thilsted, S.H., Lubchenco, J., 2020. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588, 95–
100.  
Cottrell, R.S., Blanchard, J.L., Halpern, B.S., Metian, M., Froehlich, H.E., 2020. Global adoption 
of novel aquaculture feeds could substantially reduce forage fish demand by 2030. Nat 
Food 1, 301–308.  
Cottrell, R.S., Metian, M., Froehlich, H.E., Blanchard, J.L., Sand Jacobsen, N., McIntyre, P.B., 
Nash, K.L., Williams, D.R., Bouwman, L., Gephart, J.A., Kuempel, C.D., Moran, D.D., 
Troell, M., Halpern, B.S., 2021. Time to rethink trophic levels in aquaculture policy. 
Reviews in Aquaculture 13, 1583–1593.  
Crick, F., Koch, C., 2003. A framework for consciousness. Nat Neurosci 6, 119–126.  
Cullen, R., 1994. Review of Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. The Economic Journal 
104, 1488–1490.  
 
38 
Da Rocha, J.-M., Cerviño, S., Villasante, S., 2012. The Common Fisheries Policy: An enforcement 
problem. Marine Policy 36, 1309–1314.  
D’Amico, P., Armani, A., Gianfaldoni, D., Guidi, A., 2016. New provisions for the labelling of 
fishery and aquaculture products: Difficulties in the implementation of Regulation (EU) n. 
1379/2013. Marine Policy 71, 147–156.  
Davies, I.P., Carranza, V., Froehlich, H.E., Gentry, R.R., Kareiva, P., Halpern, B.S., 2019. 
Governance of marine aquaculture: Pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Marine 
Policy 104, 29–36.  
Daw, T., Gray, T., 2005. Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: a study of 
failure in the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 29, 189–197.  
Desbois, A.P., Garza, M., Eltholth, M., Hegazy, Y.M., Mateus, A., Adams, A., Little, D.C., Høg, 
E., Mohan, C.V., Ali, S.E., Brunton, L.A., 2021. Systems-thinking approach to identify and 
assess feasibility of potential interventions to reduce antibiotic use in tilapia farming in 
Egypt. Aquaculture 540, 736735.  
Duarte, J.A., Villanueva, R., Seijo, J.C., Vela, M.A., 2022. Ocean acidification effects on 
aquaculture of a high resilient calcifier species: A bioeconomic approach. Aquaculture 559, 
738426.  
Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., 
Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T., 
Davey, M., Edgar, S.C., Försterra, G., Galván, D.E., Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, 
R., Parnell, P.E., Shears, N.T., Soler, G., Strain, E.M.A., Thomson, R.J., 2014. Global 
conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 
506, 216–220.  
E-Jahan, K.M., Ahmed, M., Belton, B., 2010. The impacts of aquaculture development on food 
security: lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 41, 481–495.  
El-Sayed, A.-F.M., Dickson, M.W., El-Naggar, G.O., 2015. Value chain analysis of the 
aquaculture feed sector in Egypt. Aquaculture 437, 92–101.  
Estévez, R.A., Gelcich, S., 2015. Participative multi-criteria decision analysis in marine 
management and conservation: Research progress and the challenge of integrating value 
judgments and uncertainty. Marine Policy 61, 1–7.  
Evans, L., Cherrett, N., Pemsl, D., 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management 
interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental 
Management 92, 1938–1949.  
FAO, 2022a. The state of World fisheries and aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. 
[WWW Document]. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en 
FAO, 2022b. Sustainable Food Systems: Highlighting the Contribution of Small-Scale and 
Artisanal Aquaculture to Healthy Diets - ProQuest [WWW Document]. URL 
https://www.proquest.com/openview/f91f6520d70211b73d9e077722a318eb/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=237326 (accessed 9.27.22). 
FAO, 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in action. Food and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 
FAO, 2018. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food 
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security.  September 2017. FAO, 
Rome, Italy. 
Farmery, A.K., White, A., Allison, E.H., 2021. Identifying Policy Best-Practices to Support the 
Contribution of Aquatic Foods to Food and Nutrition Security. Foods 10, 1589.  
 
39 
Feeney, R.G., 2013. Evaluating the use of social impact assessment in Northeast US federal 
fisheries management. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31, 271–279.  
Fernández-González, R., Pérez-Pérez, M.I., Varela Lafuente, M.M., 2020. An institutional analysis 
of Galician turbot aquaculture: Property rights system, legal framework and resistance to 
institutional change. Ocean & Coastal Management 194, 105281.  
Ferriby, H., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Hernandez-Suarez, J.S., Moore, N., Kpodo, J., Kropp, I., 
Eeswaran, R., Belton, B., Haque, M.M., 2021. Harnessing Machine Learning Techniques 
for Mapping Aquaculture Waterbodies in Bangladesh. Remote Sensing 13, 4890.  
Filipski, M., Belton, B., 2018. Give a Man a Fishpond: Modeling the Impacts of Aquaculture in the 
Rural Economy. World Development 110, 205–223.  
Frost, H., Andersen, P., 2006. The Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union and fisheries 
economics. Marine Policy 30, 737–746.  
Frühe, L., Cordier, T., Dully, V., Breiner, H.-W., Lentendu, G., Pawlowski, J., Martins, C., 
Wilding, T.A., Stoeck, T., 2021. Supervised machine learning is superior to indicator value 
inference in monitoring the environmental impacts of salmon aquaculture using eDNA 
metabarcodes. Molecular Ecology 30, 2988–3006.  
Galparsoro, I., Murillas, A., Pinarbasi, K., Sequeira, A.M.M., Stelzenmüller, V., Borja, Á., 
O´Hagan, A.M., Boyd, A., Bricker, S., Garmendia, J.M., Gimpel, A., Gangnery, A., 
Billing, S.-L., Bergh, Ø., Strand, Ø., Hiu, L., Fragoso, B., Icely, J., Ren, J., Papageorgiou, 
N., Grant, J., Brigolin, D., Pastres, R., Tett, P., 2020. Global stakeholder vision for 
ecosystem-based marine aquaculture expansion from coastal to offshore areas. Reviews in 
Aquaculture 12, 2061–2079.  
Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., Ferreira, B.P., 2011. Marine Protected 
Dramas: The Flaws of the Brazilian National System of Marine Protected Areas. 
Environmental Management 47, 630–643.  
Ghobadi, M., Nasri, M., Ahmadipari, M., 2021. Land suitability assessment (LSA) for aquaculture 
site selection via an integrated GIS-DANP multi-criteria method; a case study of lorestan 
province, Iran. Aquaculture 530, 735776.  
Gladju, J., Kamalam, B.S., Kanagaraj, A., 2022. Applications of data mining and machine learning 
framework in aquaculture and fisheries: A review. Smart Agricultural Technology 2, 
100061.  
Gonzalez Parrao, C., Shisler, S., Moratti, M., Yavuz, C., Acharya, A., Eyers, J., Snilstveit, B., 
2021. Aquaculture for improving productivity, income, nutrition and women’s 
empowerment in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 17, e1195.  
Gray, T.S., 2006. Participation in Fisheries Governance. Springer Science & Business Media. 
Gronau, S., Winter, E., Grote, U., 2020. Aquaculture, fish resources and rural livelihoods: a village 
CGE analysis from Namibia’s Zambezi Region. Environ Dev Sustain 22, 615–642.  
Haggblade, S., Chandra, B., Suresh, Jody, H., Elizabeth, M., Dorothy, N., L, H., Sheryl, 2016. 
Drivers of micronutrient policy change in Zambia: An application of the Kaleidoscope 
Model. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 
Hamilton-Hart, N., Stringer, C., 2016. Upgrading and exploitation in the fishing industry: 
Contributions of value chain analysis. Marine Policy 63, 166–171.  
Hanberger, A., 2001. What is the Policy Problem?: Methodological Challenges in Policy 
Evaluation. Evaluation 7, 45–62.  
 
40 
Hartley, T.W., 2010. Fishery management as a governance network: Examples from the Gulf of 
Maine and the potential for communication network analysis research in fisheries. Marine 
Policy 34, 1060–1067.  
Hattam, C.E., Mangi, S.C., Gall, S.C., Rodwell, L.D., 2014. Social impacts of a temperate fisheries 
closure: understanding stakeholders’ views. Marine Policy 45, 269–278.  
Hayes, C., Wainger, L., 2022. Comparing multi-criteria decision analysis to group negotiations in 
fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 138, 104997.  
Hellin, J., Meijer, M., 2006. Guidelines for value chain analysis (Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome (Italy). 
Hellweg, S., Milà i Canals, L., 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life 
cycle assessment. Science 344, 1109–1113.  
Hendriks, S.L., Mkwandawire, E., Hall, N., Olivier, Nic JJ, Schönfeldt, H.C., Randall, P., Morgan, 
S., Olivier, Nico JJ, Haggblade, S., Babu, S.C. (Eds.), 2016. Micronutrient policy change in 
South Africa: implications for the kaleidoscope model for food security policy change, FSP 
Research Paper 18.  
Henriksson, P.J.G., Guinée, J.B., Kleijn, R., de Snoo, G.R., 2012. Life cycle assessment of 
aquaculture systems—a review of methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 304–313.  
Henríquez-Antipa, L.A., Cárcamo, F., 2019. Stakeholder’s multidimensional perceptions on policy 
implementation gaps regarding the current status of Chilean small-scale seaweed 
aquaculture. Marine Policy 103, 138–147.  
Hicks, C.C., Gephart, J.A., Koehn, J.Z., Nakayama, S., Payne, H.J., Allison, E.H., Belhbib, D., 
Cao, L., Cohen, P.J., Fanzo, J., Fluet-Chouinard, E., Gelcich, S., Golden, C.D., Gorospe, 
K.D., Isaacs, M., Kuempel, C.D., Lee, K.N., MacNeil, M.A., Maire, E., Njuki, J., Rao, N., 
Sumaila, U.R., Selig, E.R., Thilsted, S.H., Wabnitz, C.C.C., Naylor, R.L., 2022. Rights and 
representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nat Food 3, 851–861.  
Hiruy, K., Wallo, M.T., 2018. Impact Assessment: assessing the social dimensions of fisheries 
research projects in the Asia-Pacific Region. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36, 
444–455.  
HLPE, 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food 
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE report 12. 152 pp. 
Howard, R.A., 1980. An Assessment of Decision Analysis. Operations Research 28, 4–27. 
https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.28.1.4 
Huang, I.B., Keisler, J., Linkov, I., 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental 
sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of The Total Environment 409, 
3578–3594.  
Huitema, D., Adger, W.N., Berkhout, F., Massey, E., Mazmanian, D., Munaretto, S., Plummer, R., 
Termeer, C., 2016. The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. 
Introduction to the Special Feature. Ecology and Society 21.  
Hutajulu, H., Kusumastanto, T., Budiharsono, S., Imran, Z., 2019. Economic policy in the 
development of capture fisheries in Jayapura City. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 241, 
012027.  
Hynes, W., Lees, M., Müller, J.M., 2020. Systemic Thinking for Policy Making: The Potential of 
Systems Analysis for Addressing Global Policy Challenges in the 21st Century, New 
Approaches to Economic Challenges. ed, New Approaches to Economic Challenges. 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. 
 
41 
Imperial, M.T., Yandle, T., 2005. Taking Institutions Seriously: Using the IAD Framework to 
Analyze Fisheries Policy. Society & Natural Resources 18, 493–509.  
Jacobsen, L.-B., Nielsen, M., Nielsen, R., 2016. Gains of integrating sector-wise pollution 
regulation: The case of nitrogen in Danish crop production and aquaculture. Ecological 
Economics 129, 172–181.  
Janssen, K., Berentsen, P., Besson, M., Komen, H., 2017. Derivation of economic values for 
production traits in aquaculture species. Genet Sel Evol 49, 5.  
Jentoft, S., Bavinck, M., 2014. Interactive governance for sustainable fisheries: dealing with legal 
pluralism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, SI: Sustainability science 11, 
71–77.  
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., 2015. Assessing Governability of Small-Scale Fisheries, in: Jentoft, 
S., Chuenpagdee, R. (Eds.), Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries: Global 
Reflections, MARE Publication Series. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 17–
35.  
Jespersen, K.S., Kelling, I., Ponte, S., Kruijssen, F., 2014. What shapes food value chains? Lessons 
from aquaculture in Asia. Food Policy 49, 228–240.  
Jin, D., 2012. Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries: A Conceptual Approach Toward an Integrated 
Economic-Ecological Analysis. Aquaculture Economics & Management 16, 167–181.  
Jueseah, A.S., Knutsson, O., Kristofersson, D.M., Tómasson, T., 2020. Seasonal flows of 
economic benefits in small-scale fisheries in Liberia: A value chain analysis. Marine Policy 
119, 104042.  
Kaliba, A.R., Engle, C.R., 2003. Impact of different policy options on profits of private catfish 
farms in Chicot County, Arkansas. Aquaculture Economics & Management 7, 309–318.  
Kaliba, A.R., Ngugi, C.C., Mackambo, J.M., Osewe, K.O., Senkondo, E., Mnembuka, B.V., 
Amisah, S., 2007. Potential effect of aquaculture promotion on poverty reduction in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Aquacult Int 15, 445–459.  
Kambey, C.S.B., Campbell, I., Cottier-Cook, E.J., Nor, A.R.M., Kassim, A., Sade, A., Lim, P.-E., 
2021. Evaluating biosecurity policy implementation in the seaweed aquaculture industry of 
Malaysia, using the quantitative knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) survey 
technique. Marine Policy 134, 104800.  
Kaminski, A.M., Genschick, S., Kefi, A.S., Kruijssen, F., 2018. Commercialization and upgrading 
in the aquaculture value chain in Zambia. Aquaculture 493, 355–364.  
Kaplinsky, R., 2004. Spreading the Gains from Globalization : What Can Be Learned from Value-
Chain Analysis? Problems of Economic Transition 47, 74–115.  
Kaplinsky, R., 2000. Globalisation and Unequalisation: What Can Be Learned from Value Chain 
Analysis? The Journal of Development Studies 37, 117–146.  
Kayıs, S., 2019. Analysis of Fish Health Status in Terms of Sustainability of Aquaculture in 
Turkey-A SWOT Analysis. Aquast 19. 
Khalilian, S., Froese, R., Proelss, A., Requate, T., 2010. Designed for failure: A critique of the 
Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. Marine Policy 34, 1178–1182.  
Kittinger, J.N., Finkbeiner, E.M., Ban, N.C., Broad, K., Carr, M.H., Cinner, J.E., Gelcich, S., 
Cornwell, M.L., Koehn, J.Z., Basurto, X., Fujita, R., Caldwell, M.R., Crowder, L.B., 2013. 
Emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems research for sustainability of small-scale 
fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open issue 5, 352–357.  
Kivits, R.A., 2011. Three component stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Multiple 
Research Approaches 5, 318–333.  
 
42 
Knowler, D., Chopin, T., Martínez-Espiñeira, R., Neori, A., Nobre, A., Noce, A., Reid, G., 2020. 
The economics of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture: where are we now and where do 
we need to go? Reviews in Aquaculture 12, 1579–1594.  
Koehn, J.Z., Allison, E.H., Villeda, K., Chen, Z., Nixon, M., Crigler, E., Zhao, L., Chow, M., 
Vaitla, B., Thilsted, S.H., Scholtens, J., Hicks, C.C., Andrew, N., 2022. Fishing for health: 
Do the world’s national policies for fisheries and aquaculture align with those for nutrition? 
Fish and Fisheries 23, 125–142.  
Kooiman, J., 2016. Interactive governance and governability. Critical Reflections on Interactive 
Governance 29–50. 
Krause, G., Brugere, C., Diedrich, A., Ebeling, M.W., Ferse, S.C.A., Mikkelsen, E., Pérez 
Agúndez, J.A., Stead, S.M., Stybel, N., Troell, M., 2015. A revolution without people? 
Closing the people–policy gap in aquaculture development. Aquaculture, Research for the 
Next 40 Years of Sustainable Global Aquaculture 447, 44–55.  
Kruijssen, F., McDougall, C.L., van Asseldonk, I.J.M., 2018. Gender and aquaculture value 
chains: A review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture 493, 328–337.  
Lam, M.E., 2016. The Ethics and Sustainability of Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture. J Agric 
Environ Ethics 29, 35–65.  
Laugen, A.T., Engelhard, G.H., Whitlock, R., Arlinghaus, R., Dankel, D.J., Dunlop, E.S., Eikeset, 
A.M., Enberg, K., Jørgensen, C., Matsumura, S., Nusslé, S., Urbach, D., Baulier, L., 
Boukal, D.S., Ernande, B., Johnston, F.D., Mollet, F., Pardoe, H., Therkildsen, N.O., Uusi-
Heikkilä, S., Vainikka, A., Heino, M., Rijnsdorp, A.D., Dieckmann, U., 2014. Evolutionary 
impact assessment: accounting for evolutionary consequences of fishing in an ecosystem 
approach to fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries 15, 65–96.  
Lawless, S., Cohen, P.J., McDougall, C., Mangubhai, S., Song, A.M., Morrison, T.H., 2022. 
Tinker, tailor or transform: Gender equality amidst social-ecological change. Global 
Environmental Change 72, 102434.  
Lee, G., Suzuki, A., Nam, V.H., 2019. Effect of network-based targeting on the diffusion of good 
aquaculture practices among shrimp producers in Vietnam. World Development 124, 
104641.  
Lee, W.-C., Chen, Y.-H., Lee, Y.-C., Liao, I.C., 2003. The competitiveness of the eel aquaculture 
in Taiwan, Japan, and China. Aquaculture 221, 115–124.  
Legorburu, I., Johnson, K.R., Kerr, S.A., 2018. Multi-use maritime platforms - North Sea oil and 
offshore wind: Opportunity and risk. Ocean & Coastal Management 160, 75–85.  
Leslie, H.M., Basurto, X., Nenadovic, M., Sievanen, L., Cavanaugh, K.C., Cota-Nieto, J.J., 
Erisman, B.E., Finkbeiner, E., Hinojosa-Arango, G., Moreno-Báez, M., Nagavarapu, S., 
Reddy, S.M.W., Sánchez-Rodríguez, A., Siegel, K., Ulibarria-Valenzuela, J.J., Weaver, 
A.H., Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2015. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework 
to assess sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 5979–5984.  
Leung, P., Pooley, S., 2001. Regional Economic Impacts of Reductions in Fisheries Production: A 
Supply-Driven Approach. Marine Resource Economics 16, 251–262.  
Ling, B.-H., Leung, P.S., Shang, Y.C., 1999. Comparing Asian shrimp farming: the domestic 
resource cost approach. Aquaculture 175, 31–48.  
Ling, B.H., Leung, P.S., Shang, Y.C., 1996. Export performance of major cultured shrimp 
producers in the Japanese and US markets. Aquaculture Research 27, 775–786.  
Linke, S., Dreyer, M., Sellke, P., 2011. The Regional Advisory Councils: What is Their Potential 
to Incorporate Stakeholder Knowledge into Fisheries Governance? AMBIO 40, 133–143.  
 
43 
Linke, S., Hadjimichael, M., Mackinson, S., Holm, Petter, 2020. Knowledge for Fisheries 
Governance: Participation, Integration and Institutional Reform, in: Holm, Peter, 
Hadjimichael, M., Linke, S., Mackinson, S. (Eds.), Collaborative Research in Fisheries: 
Co-Creating Knowledge for Fisheries Governance in Europe, MARE Publication Series. 
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
26784-1_2 
Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Seager, T.P., Bridges, T., Gardner, K.H., Rogers, S.H., 
Belluck, D.A., Meyer, A., 2006. Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive 
Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments. Risk Analysis 26, 61–78. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x 
Liu, K.F.R., 2007. Evaluating Environmental Sustainability: An Integration of Multiple-Criteria 
Decision-Making and Fuzzy Logic. Environmental Management 39, 721–736.  
Llorente, I., Luna, L., 2016. Bioeconomic modelling in aquaculture: an overview of the literature. 
Aquacult Int 24, 931–948.  
Lofgren, H., Harris, R.L., Robinson, S., 2002. A Standard Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) 
Model in GAMS. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 
Lopes, P.F.M., Mendes, L., Fonseca, V., Villasante, S., 2017. Tourism as a driver of conflicts and 
changes in fisheries value chains in Marine Protected Areas. Journal of Environmental 
Management 200, 123–134.  
Malvarosa, L., Murillas, A., Lehuta, S., Nielsen, J.R., Macher, C., Goti, L., Motova, A., Doering, 
R., Haraldson, G., Accadia, P., Hamon, K.G., Bastardie, F., Maravelias, C.D., Mardle, S., 
Thøgersen, T., 2019. Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) in fisheries: Implementation 
in EU fishing regions. Marine Policy 101, 63–79.  
Mather, D., Ndyetabula, D. (Eds.), 2016. Assessing the Drivers of Tanzania’s Fertilizer Subsidy 
Programs from 2003-2016: An Application of the Kaleidoscope Model of Policy Change, 
FSP Reearch Paper.  
Maxwell, R.J., Filgueira, R., 2020. Key players in the Grieg NL Placentia Bay Atlantic Salmon 
Aquaculture Project: A social network analysis. Marine Policy 113, 103800.  
McGuire, C.J., Harris, B.P., 2011. Systems Thinking Applied to U.S. Federal Fisheries 
Management. Nat. Resources & Env’t 26, 3. 
Milstein, B., Wetterhall, S., CDC Evaluation Working Group, 2000. A Framework Featuring Steps 
and Standards for Program Evaluation. Health Promotion Practice 1, 221–228.  
Mishan, E.J., Quah, E., 2020. Cost-Benefit Analysis, 6th ed. Routledge, London.  
Mohsin, M., Hengbin, Y., Luyao, Z., Rui, L., Chong, Q., Mehak, A., 2022. An Application of 
Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis for Risk Prioritization and Management: A Case Study 
of the Fisheries Sector in Pakistan. Sustainability 14, 8831.  
Mulazzani, L., Madau, F.A., Pulina, P., Malorgio, G., 2021. Acceptance of insect meal in 
aquaculture feeding: A stakeholder analysis for the Italian supply chains of trout and 
seabass. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 52, 378–394.  
Muringai, R.T., Mafongoya, P., Lottering, R.T., Mugandani, R., Naidoo, D., 2022. Unlocking the 
Potential of Fish to Improve Food and Nutrition Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. 
Sustainability 14, 318.  
Nasr-Allah, A., Gasparatos, A., Karanja, A., Dompreh, E.B., Murphy, S., Rossignoli, C.M., 
Phillips, M., Charo-Karisa, H., 2020. Employment generation in the Egyptian aquaculture 
value chain: implications for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 
Aquaculture 520, 734940.  
 
44 
Naylor, R.L., Hardy, R.W., Buschmann, A.H., Bush, S.R., Cao, L., Klinger, D.H., Little, D.C., 
Lubchenco, J., Shumway, S.E., Troell, M. 2021. A 20-year retrospective review of global 
aquaculture. Nature 591, 551–563.  
Naylor, R.L., Kishore, A., Sumaila, U.R., Issifu, I., Hunter, B.P., Belton, B., Bush, S.R., Cao, L., 
Gelcich, S., Gephart, J.A., Golden, C.D., Jonell, M., Koehn, J.Z., Little, D.C., Thilsted, 
S.H., Tigchelaar, M., Crona, B., 2021. Blue food demand across geographic and temporal 
scales. Nat Commun 12, 5413.  
Nutters, H.M., Pinto da Silva, P., 2012. Fishery stakeholder engagement and marine spatial 
planning: Lessons from the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean 
Management Plan. Ocean & Coastal Management 67, 9–18.  
Okello, A., Welburn, S., Smith, J., 2015. Crossing institutional boundaries: mapping the policy 
process for improved control of endemic and neglected zoonoses in sub-Saharan Africa. 
Health Policy and Planning 30, 804–812.  
Oliver, K., Cairney, P., 2019. The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of 
advice to academics. Palgrave Commun 5, 1–11.  
Olson, J., Pinto da Silva, P., 2021. Science, social networks, and collaboration: an analysis of 
publications in fisheries science from 1990 to 2018. ICES Journal of Marine Science 78, 
810–820.  
Olson, M., 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, With a 
New Preface and Appendix, Revised edition. ed. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 
Mass. 
Orchard, S.E., Stringer, L.C., Quinn, C.H., 2015. Impacts of aquaculture on social networks in the 
mangrove systems of northern Vietnam. Ocean & Coastal Management 114, 1–10.  
Osawe, O.W., Salman, K.K., 2016. Competitiveness of Fish Farming in Lagos State, Nigeria: An 
Application of Policy Analysis Matrix. Journal of Agriculture and Sustainability 9. 
Osmundsen, T.C., Olsen, M.S., Gauteplass, A., Asche, F., 2022. Aquaculture policy: Designing 
licenses for environmental regulation. Marine Policy 138, 104978.  
Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy 
Studies Journal 39, 7–27.  
Ostrom, E., 2007. Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and 
Development Framework, in: Theories of the Policy Process. Routledge. 
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, 
1st edition. ed. Cambridge University Press, Dallas, TX. 
Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., Wynne, S., 1993. Institutional Incentives And Sustainable 
Development: Infrastructure Policies In Perspective, 1st edition. ed. Westview Press, 
Boulder. 
Pan, M., Leung, P.S., Pooley, S.G., 2001. A Decision Support Model for Fisheries Management in 
Hawaii: A Multilevel and Multiobjective Programming Approach. North American Journal 
of Fisheries Management 21, 293–309.  
Partelow, S., 2018. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, 
modifications, and challenges. Ecology and Society 23. 
Partelow, S., Jäger, A., Schlüter, A., 2021. Linking Fisher Perceptions to Social-Ecological 
Context: Mixed Method Application of the SES Framework in Costa Rica. Hum Ecol 49, 
187–203.  
Partelow, S., Schlüter, A., O. Manlosa, A., Nagel, B., Octa Paramita, A., 2022. Governing 
aquaculture commons. Reviews in Aquaculture 14, 729–750.  
 
45 
Pascoe, S., Kahui, V., Hutton, T., Dichmont, C., 2016. Experiences with the use of bioeconomic 
models in the management of Australian and New Zealand fisheries. Fisheries Research 
183, 539–548.  
Patton, C.V., Sawicki, D.S., Clark, J., 2013. Basic methods of policy analysis and planning, 3rd ed. 
ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, N.J. 
Pearce, D., 1998. Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Review of Economic 
Policy 14, 84–100. h 
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S., 2006. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent 
developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. 
Peel, D., Lloyd, M.G., 2008. Governance and planning policy in the marine environment: 
regulating aquaculture in Scotland. The Geographical Journal 174, 361–373.  
Peñalosa Martinell, D., Vergara-Solana, F.J., Almendarez-Hernández, L.C., Araneda-Padilla, 
M.E., 2020. Econometric models applied to aquaculture as tools for sustainable production. 
Reviews in Aquaculture 12, 1344–1359. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12385 
Peugh, J.L., 2010. A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology 48, 85–
112.  
Pita, C., Chuenpagdee, R., Pierce, G.J., 2012. Participatory issues in fisheries governance in 
Europe. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 23, 347–361.  
Podhora, A., Helming, K., Adenäuer, L., Heckelei, T., Kautto, P., Reidsma, P., Rennings, K., 
Turnpenny, J., Jansen, J., 2013. The policy-relevancy of impact assessment tools: 
Evaluating nine years of European research funding. Environmental Science & Policy 31, 
85–95.  
Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Courtney, K., Mattich, N., 2016. Improving marine fisheries management 
in Southeast Asia: Results of a regional fisheries stakeholder analysis. Marine Policy 65, 
20–29.  
Ponte, S., Kelling, I., Jespersen, K.S., Kruijssen, F., 2014. The Blue Revolution in Asia: Upgrading 
and Governance in Aquaculture Value Chains. World Development 64, 52–64.  
Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of 
impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 
41, 1–9.  
Porras, I., Mohammed, E.Y., Ali, L., Ali, Md.S., Hossain, Md.B., 2017. Power, profits and 
payments for ecosystem services in Hilsa fisheries in Bangladesh: A value chain analysis. 
Marine Policy 84, 60–68.  
Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free 
Press ; Collier Macmillan, New York : London. 
Prellezo, R., Accadia, P., Andersen, J.L., Andersen, B.S., Buisman, E., Little, A., Nielsen, J.R., 
Poos, J.J., Powell, J., Röckmann, C., 2012. A review of EU bio-economic models for 
fisheries: The value of a diversity of models. Marine Policy 36, 423–431.  
Purcell, S.W., Crona, B.I., Lalavanua, W., Eriksson, H., 2017. Distribution of economic returns in 
small-scale fisheries for international markets: A value-chain analysis. Marine Policy 86, 
9–16.  
Ragasa, C., Charo-Karisa, H., Rurangwa, E., Tran, N., Shikuku, K.M., 2022. Sustainable 
aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Food 3, 92–94.  
Rahman, L.F., Marufuzzaman, M., Alam, L., Bari, M.A., Sumaila, U.R., Sidek, L.M., 2021. 
Developing an Ensembled Machine Learning Prediction Model for Marine Fish and 
Aquaculture Production. Sustainability 13, 9124.  
 
46 
Read, P., Fernandes, T., 2003. Management of environmental impacts of marine aquaculture in 
Europe. Aquaculture, Management of Aquaculture Effluents 226, 139–163.  
Resnick, D., Mather, D., 2016. Agricultural Inputs Policy Under Macroeconomic Uncertainty: 
Applying the kaleidoscope model to Ghana’s Fertilizer Subsidy Programme (2008–2015). 
Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 
Resnick, D., Mather, D., Mason, N., Ndyetabula, D. (Eds.), 2017. What Drives Agricultural Input 
Subsidy Reform in Africa? Applying the Kaleidoscope Model of Food Security Policy 
Change, FSP Policy Research Brief 27. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.260419 
Resnick et al., D., 2015. Conceptualizing Drivers of Policy Change in Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Food Security: The Kaleidoscope Model 56.  
Rhodes, R.A.W., 2008. Policy Network Analysis, in: Goodin, R., Moran, M., Rein, M. (Eds.), The 
Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford University Press, online edn, Oxford Academic 
Rickels, W., Weigand, C., Grasse, P., Schmidt, J., Voss, R., 2019. Does the European Union 
achieve comprehensive blue growth? Progress of EU coastal states in the Baltic and North 
Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean against sustainable development goal 14. Marine Policy 106, 
103515.  
Ridler, N., Wowchuk, M., Robinson, B., Barrington, K., Chopin, T., Robinson, S., Page, F., Reid, 
G., Szemerda, M., Sewuster, J., Boyne-Travis, S., 2007. Integrated Multi − Trophic 
Aquaculture (imta): A Potential Strategic Choice for Farmers. Aquaculture Economics & 
Management 11, 99–110.  
Rimmer, M.A., Sugama, K., Rakhmawati, D., Rofiq, R., Habgood, R.H., 2013. A review and 
SWOT analysis of aquaculture development in Indonesia. Reviews in Aquaculture 5, 255–
279.  
Robinson, S., Yúnez-Naude, A., Hinojosa-Ojeda, R., Lewis, J.D., Devarajan, S., 1999. From 
stylized to applied models: Building multisector CGE models for policy analysis. The 
North American Journal of Economics and Finance 10, 5–38.  
Rodríguez-Luna, D., Vela, N., Alcalá, F.J., Encina-Montoya, F., 2021. The Environmental Impact 
Assessment in Aquaculture Projects in Chile: A Retrospective and Prospective Review 
Considering Cultural Aspects. Sustainability 13, 9006.  
Rosales, R.M., Pomeroy, R., Calabio, I.J., Batong, M., Cedo, K., Escara, N., Facunla, V., Gulayan, 
A., Narvadez, M., Sarahadil, M., Sobrevega, M.A., 2017. Value chain analysis and small-
scale fisheries management. Marine Policy 83, 11–21.  
Rossetto, M., Bitetto, I., Spedicato, M.T., Lembo, G., Gambino, M., Accadia, P., Melià, P., 2015. 
Multi-criteria decision-making for fisheries management: A case study of Mediterranean 
demersal fisheries. Marine Policy 53, 83–93.  
Rudd, M.A., 2004. An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based 
fisheries management policy experiments. Ecological Economics 48, 109–124.  
Rudd, M.A., Tupper, M.H., Folmer, H., Van Kooten, G.C., 2003. Policy analysis for tropical 
marine reserves: challenges and directions. Fish and Fisheries 4, 65–85.  
Salomon, M., Markus, T., Dross, M., 2014. Masterstroke or paper tiger – The reform of the EU׳s 
Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 47, 76–84.  
Sarter, S., Sarter, G., Gilabert, P., 2010. A Swot analysis of HACCP implementation in 
Madagascar. Food Control 21, 253–259.  
Schiffer, E., Hauck, J., 2010. Net-Map: Collecting Social Network Data and Facilitating Network 
Learning through Participatory Influence Network Mapping. Field Methods 22, 231–249.  
 
47 
Schiffer, E., Waale, D., 2008. Tracing Power and Influence in Networks: Net-Map as a Tool for 
Research and Strategic Network Planning (Environment and Production Technology 
Division No. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00772). International Food Policy Research Institute 
(IFPRI). 
Schmitz, H., 2005. Value Chain Analysis for Policy-makers and Practitioners. International Labour 
Organization, Geneva. 
Senff, P., Partelow, S., Indriana, L.F., Buhari, N., Kunzmann, A., 2018. Improving pond 
aquaculture production on Lombok, Indonesia. Aquaculture 497, 64–73.  
Seung, C.K., Waters, E.C., 2010. Evaluating Supply-Side and Demand-Side Shocks for Fisheries: 
A Computable General Equilibrium (cge) Model for Alaska. Economic Systems Research 
22, 87–109.  
Shang, Y.C., Leung, P., Ling, B.-H., 1998. Comparative economics of shrimp farming in Asia. 
Aquaculture 164, 183–200.  
Short, R.E., Gelcich, S., Little, D.C., Micheli, F., Allison, E.H., Basurto, X., Belton, B., Brugere, 
C., Bush, S.R., Cao, L., Crona, B., Cohen, P.J., Defeo, O., Edwards, P., Ferguson, C.E., 
Franz, N., Golden, C.D., Halpern, B.S., Hazen, L., Hicks, C., Johnson, D., Kaminski, A.M., 
Mangubhai, S., Naylor, R.L., Reantaso, M., Sumaila, U.R., Thilsted, S.H., Tigchelaar, M., 
Wabnitz, C.C.C., Zhang, W., 2021. Harnessing the diversity of small-scale actors is key to 
the future of aquatic food systems. Nat Food 2, 733–741.  
Siddiki, S., Goel, S., 2015. A stakeholder analysis of U.S. marine aquaculture partnerships. Marine 
Policy 57, 93–102.  
Simmance, F.A., Cohen, P.J., Huchery, C., Sutcliffe, S., Suri, S.K., Tezzo, X., Thilsted, S.H., 
Oosterveer, P., McDougall, C., Ahern, M., Freed, S., Byrd, K.A., Wesana, J., Cowx, I.G., 
Mills, D.J., Akester, M., Chan, C.Y., Nagoli, J., Wate, J.T., Phillips, M.J., 2022. Nudging 
fisheries and aquaculture research towards food systems. Fish and Fisheries 23, 34–53.  
Slater, M.J., Mgaya, Y.D., Mill, A.C., Rushton, S.P., Stead, S.M., 2013. Effect of social and 
economic drivers on choosing aquaculture as a coastal livelihood. Ocean & Coastal 
Management 73, 22–30.  
Sowman, M., 2011. New perspectives in small-scale fisheries management: challenges and 
prospects for implementation in South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 33, 297–
311.  
Start, D., Hovland, I., 2004. Tools for policy impact: a handbook for researchers. Overseas 
Development Institute, London. 
Stead, S.M., 2019. Using systems thinking and open innovation to strengthen aquaculture policy 
for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Fish Biology 94, 837–
844.  
Stewart, B.D., Burns, C., Hejnowicz, A.P., Gravey, V., O’Leary, B.C., Hicks, K., Farstad, F.M., 
Hartley, S.E., 2019. Making Brexit work for the environment and livelihoods: Delivering a 
stakeholder informed vision for agriculture and fisheries. People and Nature 1, 442–456.  
Stuiver, M., Soma, K., Koundouri, P., Van den Burg, S., Gerritsen, A., Harkamp, T., Dalsgaard, 
N., Zagonari, F., Guanche, R., Schouten, J.-J., Hommes, S., Giannouli, A., Söderqvist, T., 
Rosen, L., Garção, R., Norrman, J., Röckmann, C., De Bel, M., Zanuttigh, B., Petersen, O., 
Møhlenberg, F., 2016. The Governance of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea for Energy 
Production and Aquaculture: Challenges for Policy Makers in European Seas. 
Sustainability 8, 333.  
 
48 
Su, S., Tang, Y., Kritzer, J.P., Chen, Y., 2022. Using systems thinking to diagnose science-based 
fisheries management in China. Marine Policy 138, 104974.  
Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., Jia, J., 2009. Global aquaculture and its role in sustainable development. 
Reviews in Aquaculture 1, 2–9.  
Syed, S., ní Aodha, L., Scougal, C., Spruit, M., 2019. Mapping the global network of fisheries 
science collaboration. Fish and Fisheries 20, 830–856.  
Sylvia, G., Anderson, J.L., 1993. An Economic Policy Model for Net-Pen Salmon Farming, in: 
Aquaculture. Routledge. 
Sylvia, G., Anderson, J.L., Cai, D., 1996. A Multilevel, Multiobjective Policy Model: The Case of 
Marine Aquaculture Development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 79–
88.  
Symes, D., 2006. Fisheries governance: A coming of age for fisheries social science? Fisheries 
Research 81, 113–117.  
Symes, D., Phillipson, J., Salmi, P., 2015. Europe’s Coastal Fisheries: Instability and the Impacts 
of Fisheries Policy. Sociologia Ruralis 55, 245–257.  
Tacon, A.G.J., Metian, M., McNevin, A.A., 2022. Future Feeds: Suggested Guidelines for 
Sustainable Development. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 30, 271–279.  
Tezzo, X., Bush, S.R., Oosterveer, P., Belton, B., 2021. Food system perspective on fisheries and 
aquaculture development in Asia. Agric Hum Values 38, 73–90.  
Tiller, R., Richards, R., Salgado, H., Strand, H., Moe, E., Ellis, J., 2014. Assessing Stakeholder 
Adaptive Capacity to Salmon Aquaculture in Norway. Consilience 62–97. 
Torell, E.C., Jamu, D.M., Kanyerere, G.Z., Chiwaula, L., Nagoli, J., Kambewa, P., Brooks, A., 
Freeman, P., 2020. Assessing the economic impacts of post-harvest fisheries losses in 
Malawi. World Development Perspectives 19, 100224.  
Tosun, J., 2011. Political parties and marine pollution policy: Exploring the case of Germany. 
Marine Policy, The Human Dimensions of Northern Marine Mammal Management In A 
Time Of Rapid Change 35, 536–541.  
Troell, M., Joyce, A., Chopin, T., Neori, A., Buschmann, A.H., Fang, J.-G., 2009. Ecological 
engineering in aquaculture — Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in 
marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297, 1–9.  
Varvasovszky, Z., Brugha, R., 2000. A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning 15, 338–
345. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.338 
Vedung, E., 2017. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. Routledge, New York. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127767 
Veliu, A., Gessese, N., Ragasa, C., Okali, C., 2009. Gender Analysis of Aquaculture Value Chain 
in Northeast Vietnam and Nigeria (Working Paper No. Agriculture and Rural Development 
Discussion Paper 44. World Bank : Washington DC), Agriculture and Rural Development 
Discussion Paper 44. World Bank : Washington DC. World Bank, Washington, DC. 
Vergara-Solana, F., Araneda, M.E., Ponce-Díaz, G., 2019. Opportunities for strengthening 
aquaculture industry through multicriteria decision-making. Reviews in Aquaculture 11, 
105–118.  
Viana, M., Jackson, A.L., Graham, N., Parnell, A.C., 2013. Disentangling spatio-temporal 
processes in a hierarchical system: a case study in fisheries discards. Ecography 36, 569–
578.  
Vo, T.T.E., Ko, H., Huh, J.-H., Kim, Y., 2021. Overview of Smart Aquaculture System: Focusing 
on Applications of Machine Learning and Computer Vision. Electronics 10, 2882.  
 
49 
Wagner, T., Hayes, D.B., Bremigan, M.T., 2006. Accounting for Multilevel Data Structures in 
Fisheries Data using Mixed Models. Fisheries 31, 180–187.  
Waters, E.C., Seung, C.K., 2010. Impacts of Recent Shocks to Alaska Fisheries: A Computable 
General Equilibrium (CGE) Model Analysis. Marine Resource Economics 25, 155–183.  
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Routledge. 
Wiber, M., Charles, A., Kearney, J., Berkes, F., 2009. Enhancing community empowerment 
through participatory fisheries research. Marine Policy 33, 172–179.  
Wooldridge, J.M., 2015. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Cengage Learning. 
Yang, Y., Schmidt, P., 2021. An econometric approach to the estimation of multi-level models. 
Journal of Econometrics, Annals Issue: Celebrating 40 Years of Panel Data Analysis: Past, 
Present and Future 220, 532–543.  
Yanow, D., 2000. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. SAGE. 
Yu, J.-K., Ma, J.-Q., 2020. Social network analysis as a tool for the analysis of the international 
trade network of aquatic products. Aquacult Int 28, 1195–1211.  
Yuniarti, I., Barnes, C., Glenk, K., Sutrisno, 2021. Challenges for the development of 
environmentally sustainable cage culture farming in Lake Maninjau, Indonesia: an 
institutional perspective. Ecosystems and People 17, 248–263.  
Zhao, S., Zhang, S., Liu, J., Wang, H., Zhu, J., Li, D., Zhao, R., 2021. Application of machine 
learning in intelligent fish aquaculture: A review. Aquaculture 540, 736724.  
Ziegler, F., Hornborg, S., Green, B.S., Eigaard, O.R., Farmery, A.K., Hammar, L., Hartmann, K., 
Molander, S., Parker, R.W.R., Skontorp Hognes, E., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Smith, A.D.M., 
2016. Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using Life Cycle Assessment. Fish and 
Fisheries 17, 1073–1093.  
  
 
  
 
50 
ANNEX 1. Frameworks applied in policy analysis of AqFS 
Framework Short description Applications in AqFS  
Aquaculture Based on a shared resource or commons perspective Description and analysis of aquaculture 
governance to aquaculture for identifying the social and governance challenges and institutional 
framework based environmental commons creating collective action diversity challenges within each system: 
on commons problems or social dilemmas for aquaculture mariculture in Peru, earthen ponds in 
perspective governance (Partelow et al., 2022); helps Philippines, raceway flow-through systems 
conceptualize the origin of governance problems and in Nepal, and recirculating aquaculture 
the analysis of institutional interactions and solutions  systems in Denmark 
Social-ecological Provides guidance on how to assess the social and Social-ecological sustainability of fisheries 
systems (SESs) ecological dimensions that contribute to sustainable in Mexico and Chile (Basurto et al., 2013; 
framework resource use and management (Leslie et al., 2015); Leslie et al., 2015), pond aquaculture 
useful for analyzing the sustainability of SES and production in Indonesia (Senff et al., 2018), 
organizing the findings based on a set of potentially linking fisher perceptions to social-
relevant variables  ecological context in Costa Rica (Partelow et 
al., 2021), analyzing the relationship between 
people and policy in aquaculture 
development (Krause et al., 2015) 
Interactive An alternative framework for understanding the Analysis of fisheries governance: a 
governance and current state of affairs in the fisheries field, and the practitioner’s guide, and comprehensive 
governability new directions that could be explored; two points of academic studies on the topic of fisheries 
framework departure: (1) the increasing diversity, complexity, governance (Bavinck et al., 2013; Jentoft and 
dynamics, and differences of scale among fisheries Bavinck, 2014; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 
systems to be governed, and (2) the notion that 2015) 
governance is not a task of government alone 
(Kooiman et al., 2005) 
Participatory Emphasizes democratic engagement and deliberative Analysis of the quality of fisheries 
fisheries processes steering the complex set of interactions governance in Spain using a participatory 
governance among stakeholders, with different needs, demands, and multicriteria framework (Aguado et al., 
and interests, whose activities are often managed by 2021), participatory issues in fisheries 
multiple agencies and regulations (Aguado et al., governance in Europe (Pita et al., 2012), how 
2021).  regional advisory councils can incorporate 
stakeholder knowledge into fisheries 
governance (Linke et al., 2011), rights-based 
fisheries governance (Allison et al., 2012), 
participation, integration and institutional 
reform in fisheries governance (Linke et al., 
2020), and community empowerment 
through participatory fisheries research 
(Wiber et al., 2009) 
 
51 
Framework Short description Applications in AqFS  
Institutional Examines problems that individuals (or organizations) Analysis of the challenges for the 
analysis and face and how rules address these problems; used for development of environmentally sustainable 
development analyzing fisheries management institutions, cage culture farming in Lake Maninjau, 
framework particularly collective action and problems that Indonesia (Yuniarti et al., 2021), institutional 
individuals (or organizations) face and how rules analysis of aquaculture in Galician turbot, 
address the problems (Ostrom, 1990); considers Spain (Fernández-González et al., 2020), 
institutional design and performance in the assessment of policy design and 
management of common pool resource systems interpretation of aquaculture policies in 
(Ostrom, 2011, 2007).  Florida and Virginia of the US (Siddiki, 
2014)  
Systems thinking Provides a methodology to achieve a better Contribution of aquaculture to antibiotic 
understanding of the nonlinear behavior of complex resistance in Vietnam (Brunton et al., 2019);  
systems and improve the assessment of the feasibility of potential interventions to 
consequences of policy interventions (Hynes et al., reduce antibiotic use in tilapia farming in 
2020); based on the belief that component parts of a Egypt (Desbois et al., 2021); stakeholder 
system will act differently when viewed in isolation adaptive capacity to salmon aquaculture 
from other parts of the same system, so sets out to policies in Norway (Tiller et al., 2014); 
view whole structures in a holistic manner (Stead, marine fisheries management systems in the 
2019). US (McGuire and Harris, 2011), China (Su 
et al., 2022) and South Africa (Sowman, 
2011); impact of Europe’s coastal fisheries 
policy (Symes et al., 2015); social-ecological 
links that can inform a transition toward 
sustainability in small-scale fisheries 
(Kittinger et al., 2013)    
 
 
  
 
52 
ANNEX 2. Tools or methods applied in policy analysis of AqFS 
Tools/methods Short description Data Countries with 
requirements/sources applications  Applications in AqFS 
Multi-criteria Techniques for Multilevel dynamic Canada, Egypt, Production site 
decision considering two or more models, objective India, Iran, selection, supplier 
analysis objectives or criteria for a programming, nonlinear Greece, Kenya, selection, financial risk 
(MCDA) given decision (Howard, programming, Malaysia, control, strategic 
1980); provides a compromise Mexico, planning or sectoral 
systematic methodology programming, analytic Philippines, analysis, optimization 
to combine heterogeneous hierarchy process) (e.g., Thailand, United of public policy, 
and uncertain technical in site selection, Kingdom, operation optimization 
information into an geographic information United States of productive units, 
understandable system (e.g., for data selection of species for 
framework to facilitate collection), etc.  (see domestication, project 
decision making (Huang Ghobadi et al., 2021) impact assessment 
et al., 2011) 
Life cycle ISO-standardized; (1) Definition of goal Australia, Quantifying 
assessment  quantifies the impacts of and scope, (2) life cycle Canada, environmental impacts 
products and systems on inventory, (3) impact Denmark, of aquaculture and 
ecosystems, human assessment (see Iceland, New seafood production 
health, and natural Henriksson et al., 2012; Zealand, systems; comparing 
resources from the Ziegler et al., 2016)  Norway, Peru, different intensities, 
extraction of the raw Portugal, technologies, and/or 
materials through their Senegal, Spain, culture types in order to 
production and use or Sweden, United identify the most 
operation to their final States, Antarctic  environmental-friendly 
decommissioning and ways of producing 
disposal (Bohnes et al., seafood and in policy 
2019)  support and fisheries 
management 
Cost-benefit Systematic and analytical (1) Specify the set of Cameroon, Policy analysis to 
analysis  process of comparing alternative projects or Indonesia, demonstrate whether 
economic benefits and policies; (2) decide Kenya, Norway, marine reserves lead to 
costs in evaluating the whose benefits and Sri Lanka,  sustained 
desirability of policies, costs count; (3) identify socioeconomic benefits  
projects or programs, and catalogue impact 
often of a social nature; categories, and select 
formal technique for measurement 
making informed indicators; (4) predict 
decisions on the use of impacts quantitatively 
society’s scarce resources over the life of the 
(Boardman, 2011; Brent, project; (5) monetize 
2006; Mishan and Quah, impacts; (6) discount 
2020) benefits and costs to 
obtain present values; 
(7) compute net present 
value of each 
alternative; (8) perform 
sensitivity analysis (see 
Boardman, 2011) 
 
53 
Tools/methods Short description Data Countries with 
requirements/sources applications  Applications in AqFS 
SWOT A simple way to assess Qualitative— Alaska, Egypt, Aquaculture 
(strengths, how a policy/strategy can background study or Indonesia, development and 
weaknesses, best be implemented literature review Madagascar, sustainability; fisheries 
opportunities, (Start and Hovland, 2004) detailing internal Nigeria, South development 
threats) through broad application factors (strengths and Africa, Turkey, 
analysis or singling out a small weaknesses) and Uganda,  
subcomponent of the external factors (threats 
strategy and opportunities) of 
the policy or project 
(Rimmer et al., 2013) 
and stakeholder 
interviews (Sarter et al., 
2010); quantitative— 
statistical analysis to 
compare the factors 
(Babatunde et al., 
2021b, 2021a) 
Impact Six well-established (1) Scoping and Chile, Europe, Environmental impact 
assessments forms to structure and baseline study, (2) Malawi, Asia assessment and 
support policy description and Pacific, North sustainability 
development (Malvarosa evaluation of baseline America assessment of 
et al., 2019):  conditions, (3) impact aquaculture; 
environmental impact prediction or risk evolutionary impact 
assessment, strategic assessment, (4) assessment of fisheries; 
environmental mitigation and social and economic 
assessment, policy monitoring proposals impact assessment of 
assessment, social impact and prescriptions, (5) fisheries 
assessment, health impact presentation of findings 
assessment, and and proposals, (6) 
sustainability assessment monitoring.  
(Pope et al., 2013) 
Comparative Characterize resource Empirical DRC China, Japan, Comparative advantage 
advantage allocation and analyses—based on the Nigeria, Taiwan, or export performance, 
assessment specialization patterns; policy analysis matrix United States profitability and 
approaches reflect difference between approach (Cai and competitiveness in 
benefits and (opportunity) Leung, 2008; Hutajulu aquaculture and 
costs (Cai and Leung, et al., 2019); RCA fisheries 
2008); two common approach—standard 
approaches—domestic Balassa’s RCA index 
resource costs (DRC) (Balassa, 1965). 
approach and revealed 
comparative advantage 
(RCA) approach 
Social Maps policy processes, Literature review, Canada, Ghana, Social and economic 
Network analyzes policy networks, snowball sampling, Jamaica, drivers of aquaculture, 
Analysis and examines policy semi-structured Tanzania, impacts on social 
implementation (Fischer, interviews with key Vietnam,  networks; aquaculture 
2011; Mischen and policy actors, or focus development and trade 
Jackson, 2008; Serrat, group discussions with networks; fisheries 
2017); focuses on social local stakeholders management and social 
relationships; describes (Chambers et al., 2012; networks  
structure of networks and Okello et al., 2015) 
people’s places within 
 
54 
Tools/methods Short description Data Countries with 
requirements/sources applications  Applications in AqFS 
them (Schiffer and 
Waale, 2008).  
Value chain Looks at full range of Used to map and Bangladesh, Mapping aquaculture 
analysis activities required to analyze value chains, Egypt, Ghana, value chains; 
bring a product or service using qualitative and/or Liberia, Nigeria, commercialization and 
from conception, through quantitative research Zambia, Asia upgrading in 
production, distribution to tools (e.g., participant aquaculture; fisheries 
consumers, and final observation, semi- management and 
disposal after use (Porter, structured interviews, economic returns from 
1985); used to explain the focus group fisheries; payments for 
dynamics of economic discussions, ecosystem services; 
globalization and questionnaires) (Hellin tourism and changes in 
international trade and Meijer, 2006) fisheries value chains in 
(Kaplinsky, 2004; Bush et marine protected areas  
al., 2019)  
Bioeconomic Bioeconomic model— Depend on the type of Australia, Production, 
and biological model research to be Indonesia, New performance, and 
bioeconometric describing production conducted: component Zealand, welfare of species in 
models system plus economic research (understand Nigeria, aquaculture and 
model relating production mode of action or Norway, fisheries 
system to market prices behavior of components European Union  
and resource constraints of a production system 
(Cacho, 1997); Bio- and its subsystems), 
econometric models— systems research 
applied to biological (characterizes 
systems; consider interactions that occur 
biological characteristics between components of 
of cultured organisms, production system), 
economic aspects, and management research 
interaction between them (physical performance, 
(Peñalosa Martinell et al., financial returns, and 
2020) risk in different 
environments) (see 
Cacho 1997) 
Computable Systems of equations that Data for SAM from China, Welfare impacts of 
general represent production and secondary sources or Denmark, aquaculture on rural 
equilibrium consumption sides of all quantitative surveys Ghana, Kenya, households; interactions 
simulation markets in the economy, (Robinson et al., 1999; Myanmar, between aquaculture 
models  and the prices and trade Lofgren et al., 2002) Namibia, and capture fisheries; 
volumes that make those Tanzania, impacts of exogenous 
markets clear (Filipski United States, shocks to fisheries  
and Belton, 2018); social European Union 
accounting matrix 
(SAM)—conceptual 
framework for linking 
together different 
components of model 
(Robinson et al., 1999) 
 
55 
Tools/methods Short description Data Countries with 
requirements/sources applications  Applications in AqFS 
Multilevel Used for analysis of data (1) Clarify research Ireland, United Aquaculture and 
models with a hierarchical or question, (2) choose States fisheries biology; 
(MLMs) “nested” structure correct parameter production and 
(response variables estimation method (i.e., development aspects 
measured at the lowest full information or 
level of the hierarchy and restricted maximum 
modeled as a function of likelihood), (3) assess 
predictor variables need for MLM, (4) 
measured at that level and build level-1 model, (5) 
higher) (Wagner et al., build level-2 model, (6) 
2006) report multilevel effect 
sizes, (7) test competing 
multilevel models using 
likelihood ratio test 
Machine Machine learning—study SML methods or Bangladesh, Monitoring and control 
learning and computer modeling unsupervised learning China, Malaysia, of production 
methods of learning processes methods (Gladju et al., Norway environment; fish 
(Carbonell et al., 1983); 2022) biomass and 
supervised machine optimization of feed 
learning (SML) method— use; smart aquaculture, 
focus on prediction, surveillance of fishing; 
provide data-driven catch composition and 
approaches to building ecosystem-fisheries 
rich models, and rely on associations; 
cross-validation as a environment 
powerful tool for model monitoring; fish 
selection. processing and 
marketing 
 
 
  
 
56 
ANNEX 3. Examples of policy analysis and evaluation studies in AqFS 
Policy analysis/studies  Policy issues/problems Recommended policy solutions 
Integrated multitrophic Flexibility within current governance frameworks * Develop a dedicated aquaculture policy 
aquaculture (IMTA) in across six European countries to allow for IMTA promoting innovation and technology, and 
Europe (K. A. adoption and management; identifying incentives diversifying aquaculture activities;  
Alexander et al., 2015) and barriers to the development of IMTA within *Simplify the regulatory burden, through the 
Europe  development of one-stop-shop licensing or 
dedicated spatial planning for aquaculture;  
* Move focus from single species approach 
to incorporate biculture and polyculture; and 
* Develop disease and food safety legislation 
that directly recognizes IMTA products. 
Governance of multiuse Upsurge in competing marine activities (fisheries, *Develop clear policy framework at all levels 
platforms at sea tourism, transportation, and oil production) and to guide offshore MUPS development, 
(MUPS) for energy infrastructures (offshore windfarms, aquaculture, including licensing procedure that adheres to 
production and and tidal and wave energy); high investment costs marine spatial planning principles to foster 
aquaculture in European and risks compared with business-as-usual sustainable use of marine space.  
seas (Stuiver et al., projects; understanding how governance *Create financial support mechanisms to 
2016) arrangements may facilitate or complicate MUPs make investments attractive to developers. 
*Protect marine ecosystem through licensing 
procedures based on site-specific 
environmental studies that guarantee 
implementation of an environmental 
monitoring system in the designated marine 
areas for MUPS development.  
*Involve different stakeholders who can 
share and improve their knowledge, influence 
MUPS developments, and together search for 
creative solutions to difficulties in 
development and implementation of MUPS. 
Governance and Changing state–market–civil relations involved in *Design an appropriate form of governance 
planning policy in the evolution from a nonstatutory to a statutory that is open, participative, accountable, 
marine environment for planning regulatory regime for marine aquaculture coherent and effective.  
regulating aquaculture in Scotland; state interventions to correct the *There is need to conduct more research to 
in Scotland (Peel and perceived market failures associated with inform the emerging marine environmental 
Lloyd, 2008) aquaculture and its environment. planning and governance debates. 
 
57 
Policy analysis/studies  Policy issues/problems Recommended policy solutions 
Institutions-based Understanding the design of policies governing the Better knowledge of policy interpretation can 
analysis approach to behavior of aquaculture participants in Florida and assist both the policy scholar and practitioner 
assess policy design Virginia; understanding the relationship between in homing in on the particular aspects of 
and interpretation of perceptions of policy legitimacy, coerciveness, and policies that are likely to be met with most 
aquaculture policies in enforcement in shaping individuals’ interpretations resistance and be least effective.  
Florida and Virginia of of regulations 
the United States 
(Siddiki, 2014).  
Impact of Europe’s Increasing stress from both internal and external Devolve much of the responsibility for 
coastal fisheries policy pressures for change; growing instability and managing coastal fisheries to the local and 
(Symes et al., 2015) uncertainty affecting Europe’s coastal fisheries and regional level where the nature of the 
fishing communities; tensions between and within interactions between the ecological and social 
the current sectoral and territorial approaches to subsystems are more readily apparent, the 
management; understanding recent moves to find a issues arising more sharply defined, and the 
middle way that can contribute more effectively to opportunities for interactive governance and 
resilience building resilience building more readily realized. 
Policy analysis for Understanding use of marine reserves as a central Determine the proper balance of the state and 
tropical marine tool for marine ecosystem-based management in the community in tropical fisheries 
reserves: Challenges tropical inshore fisheries; lack of rigorous policy governance through broad comparative 
and directions (Rudd et analyses that consider a full range of economic studies of marine reserves and alternative 
al., 2003) costs and benefits, including transaction costs of policy tools. 
management 
Demand for improved Determining demand for improved fish feed from Policies that help reduce the price of 
fish feed in the presence private markets, and whether the government feed improved feed such as reduction in tariffs on 
of a subsidy: A double subsidy program affects private demand for imported feeds and feed ingredients will 
hurdle application in improved feed   foster demand for the feed, as will policies 
Kenya (Amankwah et that facilitate marketing of fish at reasonable 
al., 2016) prices by households. 
Rights and Understanding whether barriers to participation Injustices are prevalent in food systems, 
representation support explain unequal distributions of benefits in AqFS where the accumulation of vast wealth is 
justice across aquatic possible for a few, yet one in ten people 
food systems (Hicks et remain hungry. Results show that countries 
al., 2022) produce and consume less when wealth, 
formal education and voice and 
accountability are lacking. Aquatic foods are 
less affordable where gender inequality is 
greater. The policy analysis reveals a 
frequent failure of national policies to 
address political and gender-based barriers to 
more just food system outcomes centered on 
principles of human rights. 
 
58 
Policy analysis/studies  Policy issues/problems Recommended policy solutions 
Fishing for health: Do Determining if fisheries and aquaculture policies More targeted and systematic policy 
the world’s national have explicit nutrition and public health objectives approaches are needed to realize the potential 
policies for fisheries and if public health nutrition policies recognize the contribution of nutrient-rich fish and shellfish 
and aquaculture align contribution of aquatic foods to healthier food systems. 
with those for nutrition? 
(Koehn et al., 2022) 
Rapid policy network Numerous potential conflicting objectives both Future policies to implement environmental 
mapping: A new within and between nations assessment might focus on setting goals and 
method for targets at the more local level, with a 
understanding stakeholder led process propagating from 
governance structures local spatial scales upward toward a unified 
for implementation of European vision and legal formalization. 
marine environmental Using the collaborative features inherent in 
policy (Bainbridge et rapid policy network mapping, stakeholders 
al., 2011) could discuss and identify means of 
improving democratic accountability, policy 
efficiency, and innovative institutional 
structures.  
 
59 
ALL IFPRI DISCUSSION PAPERS 
 
 
All discussion papers are available here  
 
They can be downloaded free of charge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 
www.ifpri.org 
 
IFPRI HEADQUARTERS 
1201 Eye Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 USA 
Tel.: +1-202-862-5600 
Fax: +1-202-862-5606 
Email: ifpri@cgiar.org